As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Welcome to the World of Tomorrow!

13»

Posts

  • steejeesteejee Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I always thought, at least in terms of DNA or Quantum computing, that we would have to completely rewrite our notions of computer processing and language. By this, I mean no longer being binary, yes/no operations, but instead, yes/no/maybe/onlyifthishappens multiple pathway operations.

    AND|OR|NOT|NAND|NOR|XOR are some (all? been a while since I've done circuits) of the existing logic gates that are used right now.

    steejee on
    The Great DAMNED STEAM SALES AND WII/U Backlog
    Just Finished: Borderlands (waste of $7)/Mario Brothers U/The Last Story/Tropico 4
    Currently Playing: NS2/ZombiU/PlanetSide 2/Ys/Dota2/Xenoblade Chronicles
    On Hold: Prince of Persia: Warrior Within/GW2/Scribblenauts
    Coming Next: Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones/X-Com Classic
  • Lucky CynicLucky Cynic Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    WiTricity causing cancer would probably be received in the same way cell phones causing cancer has been.


    i.e.--fuck it.

    The article about wireless energy talks about using fields that are almost entirely magnetic, rather than electro-magnetic. Apparently that's better with regards to cancer and whatnot.

    Magnets aren't actually that much better, supposibly.

    Lucky Cynic on
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    WiTricity causing cancer would probably be received in the same way cell phones causing cancer has been.


    i.e.--fuck it.

    The article about wireless energy talks about using fields that are almost entirely magnetic, rather than electro-magnetic. Apparently that's better with regards to cancer and whatnot.

    Magnets aren't actually that much better, supposibly.

    Also, jewellry.

    LewieP on
  • The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    LewieP wrote: »
    WiTricity causing cancer would probably be received in the same way cell phones causing cancer has been.


    i.e.--fuck it.

    The article about wireless energy talks about using fields that are almost entirely magnetic, rather than electro-magnetic. Apparently that's better with regards to cancer and whatnot.

    Magnets aren't actually that much better, supposibly.

    Also, jewellry.
    You know I hear now that starlight gives you cancer.. but then again these days what doesn't?

    The_Spaniard on
    Xbox: SpanWolf, Playstation: Span_Wolf, Nintendo: Span_Wolf - 4854-6434-9883
    Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Span_Wolf/, Origin/GoG/Bethesda: Span_Wolf, uPlay/Bnet: SpanWolf
  • Lucky CynicLucky Cynic Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    LewieP wrote: »
    WiTricity causing cancer would probably be received in the same way cell phones causing cancer has been.


    i.e.--fuck it.

    The article about wireless energy talks about using fields that are almost entirely magnetic, rather than electro-magnetic. Apparently that's better with regards to cancer and whatnot.

    Magnets aren't actually that much better, supposibly.

    Also, jewellry.
    You know I hear now that starlight gives you cancer.. but then again these days what doesn't?

    Yes, yes it does. If you are outside of our atmosphere that is.

    Lucky Cynic on
  • SnorkSnork Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    There should be some kind of rule against 'x causes cancer' showing up in any form of published media. It's making me insane. Drinking a glass of wine each night gives you breast cancer, electromagnetic fields cause cancer, magnets cause cancer, cell phones cause cancer, bacon causes cancer, blah blah blah. EVERYTHING causes cancer.

    Snork on
  • The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    way to totally miss an obvious TV quote.

    The_Spaniard on
    Xbox: SpanWolf, Playstation: Span_Wolf, Nintendo: Span_Wolf - 4854-6434-9883
    Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Span_Wolf/, Origin/GoG/Bethesda: Span_Wolf, uPlay/Bnet: SpanWolf
  • mausmalonemausmalone Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Harakhti wrote: »
    Rocketlex wrote: »
    What is that? A prototype Big Daddy?

    I dunno about anyone else but The Fury immediately popped into my head.

    Isn't OLED sets better then SEDs? Think they're also suppose to start coming out this year too.

    OLEDs have the potential to be brighter, sharper, and thinner, but are far too expensive to be used in a large format display right now. But you could fairly easily do a 20" 1080p set that's less than 5mm thick. (EDIT: also, downside, the "organic" components of OLED rot and turn brown within a few years, so there's that to worry about.)

    SED is as bright and has the same contrast and refresh as a CRT but is the size of plasma and LCD. It's a very viable technology but it's being held up for years due to litigation and court battles.
    steejee wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I always thought, at least in terms of DNA or Quantum computing, that we would have to completely rewrite our notions of computer processing and language. By this, I mean no longer being binary, yes/no operations, but instead, yes/no/maybe/onlyifthishappens multiple pathway operations.

    AND|OR|NOT|NAND|NOR|XOR are some (all? been a while since I've done circuits) of the existing logic gates that are used right now.

    Actually, most computer circuits are just NOT and AND. Apparently you can configure NOT and AND to create all the other logic gates.

    (NAND)x = (NOT AND)x
    x OR y = NOT ( (NOT x) AND (NOT y))
    x XOR y = (x AND NOT y) OR (y AND NOT x) = NOT ( NOT (x AND NOT y) AND NOT (y AND NOT x))

    This way, chip manufacturers only need to make 2 types of gates (and actually they create only 1 type of gate and then burn out sections of that gate to make it either NOT or AND)

    For geeky fun, see if you can figure out XOR (EDIT: whoops forgot to take out this line after seeing if I could figure it out) :P

    mausmalone on
    266.jpg
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    steejee wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I always thought, at least in terms of DNA or Quantum computing, that we would have to completely rewrite our notions of computer processing and language. By this, I mean no longer being binary, yes/no operations, but instead, yes/no/maybe/onlyifthishappens multiple pathway operations.

    AND|OR|NOT|NAND|NOR|XOR are some (all? been a while since I've done circuits) of the existing logic gates that are used right now.

    No no no, it's on a more basic level than that. All the way down to 1s and 0s, offs and ons. Instead it would be 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 etc etc, so it could be a lot faster and more efficient, but you would have to basically reinvent programming to take advantage of it.

    Behemoth on
    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    mausmalone wrote: »
    Harakhti wrote: »
    Rocketlex wrote: »
    What is that? A prototype Big Daddy?

    I dunno about anyone else but The Fury immediately popped into my head.

    Isn't OLED sets better then SEDs? Think they're also suppose to start coming out this year too.

    OLEDs have the potential to be brighter, sharper, and thinner, but are far too expensive to be used in a large format display right now. But you could fairly easily do a 20" 1080p set that's less than 5mm thick. (EDIT: also, downside, the "organic" components of OLED rot and turn brown within a few years, so there's that to worry about.)

    SED is as bright and has the same contrast and refresh as a CRT but is the size of plasma and LCD. It's a very viable technology but it's being held up for years due to litigation and court battles.
    steejee wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I always thought, at least in terms of DNA or Quantum computing, that we would have to completely rewrite our notions of computer processing and language. By this, I mean no longer being binary, yes/no operations, but instead, yes/no/maybe/onlyifthishappens multiple pathway operations.

    AND|OR|NOT|NAND|NOR|XOR are some (all? been a while since I've done circuits) of the existing logic gates that are used right now.

    Actually, most computer circuits are just NOT and AND. Apparently you can configure NOT and AND to create all the other logic gates.

    (NAND)x = (NOT AND)x
    x OR y = NOT ( (NOT x) AND (NOT y))
    x XOR y = (x AND NOT y) OR (y AND NOT x) = NOT ( NOT (x AND NOT y) AND NOT (y AND NOT x))

    This way, chip manufacturers only need to make 2 types of gates (and actually they create only 1 type of gate and then burn out sections of that gate to make it either NOT or AND)

    For geeky fun, see if you can figure out XOR (EDIT: whoops forgot to take out this line after seeing if I could figure it out) :P

    Or you can just use NANDs.

    jothki on
  • AndorienAndorien Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    mausmalone wrote: »
    Harakhti wrote: »
    Rocketlex wrote: »
    What is that? A prototype Big Daddy?

    I dunno about anyone else but The Fury immediately popped into my head.

    Isn't OLED sets better then SEDs? Think they're also suppose to start coming out this year too.

    OLEDs have the potential to be brighter, sharper, and thinner, but are far too expensive to be used in a large format display right now. But you could fairly easily do a 20" 1080p set that's less than 5mm thick. (EDIT: also, downside, the "organic" components of OLED rot and turn brown within a few years, so there's that to worry about.)

    SED is as bright and has the same contrast and refresh as a CRT but is the size of plasma and LCD. It's a very viable technology but it's being held up for years due to litigation and court battles.
    steejee wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I always thought, at least in terms of DNA or Quantum computing, that we would have to completely rewrite our notions of computer processing and language. By this, I mean no longer being binary, yes/no operations, but instead, yes/no/maybe/onlyifthishappens multiple pathway operations.

    AND|OR|NOT|NAND|NOR|XOR are some (all? been a while since I've done circuits) of the existing logic gates that are used right now.

    Actually, most computer circuits are just NOT and AND. Apparently you can configure NOT and AND to create all the other logic gates.

    (NAND)x = (NOT AND)x
    x OR y = NOT ( (NOT x) AND (NOT y))
    x XOR y = (x AND NOT y) OR (y AND NOT x) = NOT ( NOT (x AND NOT y) AND NOT (y AND NOT x))

    This way, chip manufacturers only need to make 2 types of gates (and actually they create only 1 type of gate and then burn out sections of that gate to make it either NOT or AND)

    For geeky fun, see if you can figure out XOR (EDIT: whoops forgot to take out this line after seeing if I could figure it out) :P

    Or you can just use NANDs.

    Pretty much. It turns out that you can simulate every logic sequence with just NAND gates, also they're the fastest gate we have. No contest.

    Andorien on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Behemoth wrote: »
    steejee wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I always thought, at least in terms of DNA or Quantum computing, that we would have to completely rewrite our notions of computer processing and language. By this, I mean no longer being binary, yes/no operations, but instead, yes/no/maybe/onlyifthishappens multiple pathway operations.

    AND|OR|NOT|NAND|NOR|XOR are some (all? been a while since I've done circuits) of the existing logic gates that are used right now.

    No no no, it's on a more basic level than that. All the way down to 1s and 0s, offs and ons. Instead it would be 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 etc etc, so it could be a lot faster and more efficient, but you would have to basically reinvent programming to take advantage of it.

    Almost all of logic, as well.

    jothki on
  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    RCagent wrote: »
    Waka Laka wrote: »
    Lynx wrote: »
    We just need to skip the whole "flying car" idea and go straight to organic teleportation. That would completely solve all transportation problems. Forever.

    "Hey Doc... about that cat..."

    Yeah, I'd rather take a clunky ass car than risk being mutated through a time span of 40 years through 6 alternate dimensions just because I wanted to take a shortcut on my way to pickup some star bucks coffee.
    I want a teleporting car.

    mrflippy on
  • Waka LakaWaka Laka Riding the stuffed Unicorn If ya know what I mean.Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    mrflippy wrote: »
    RCagent wrote: »
    Waka Laka wrote: »
    Lynx wrote: »
    We just need to skip the whole "flying car" idea and go straight to organic teleportation. That would completely solve all transportation problems. Forever.

    "Hey Doc... about that cat..."

    Yeah, I'd rather take a clunky ass car than risk being mutated through a time span of 40 years through 6 alternate dimensions just because I wanted to take a shortcut on my way to pickup some star bucks coffee.
    I want a teleporting car.

    Car crash investigations will be awesome if you overshoot the teleportation spot.

    "Yeah speed was'nt involved, he just teleported in the middle of a brick wall"

    Waka Laka on
  • Moe FwackyMoe Fwacky Moderator mod
    edited November 2007
    People always talk about flying cars, and how cool it would be to soar in the skies in your own car. Well forget it, it's not going to happen. The risks are too great and FAA regulations would never allow it. Now a hovercar is a more reasonable solution. A car that cruises at street level without touching the ground, possibly by using electromagnetic ion propulsion to keep it adrift and having fixed landing gear so if you do run out of power (electric) you can safely land without killing/maiming yourself or others. No doubt though, a hovercar would require a different interface and therefore a different license to operate.

    Moe Fwacky on
    E6LkoFK.png

  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    JCRooks wrote: »
    So, to answer your original question ... yes, I would ride inside a vehicle no person had control over, if it were the hands of a capable and tested computer system. Then again, I'm biased because I'm also a software engineer by trade. ;)

    Everyday I ride what you essentially describe here. I ride a Segway PT for most of my in-city getting around. There is no throttle and there is no brake. To move the device forward you have to purposefully set it off balance and depend on it to regain balance. Alot of people ask me if I have problems trusting such a system and I ask them if they have problems trusting the brakes in their car. Or the portions of the engine responsible for exploding volatile fluids.

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    They see me rolling,
    My segway...

    LewieP on
Sign In or Register to comment.