h a l f b a k e r yFree set of rusty screwdrivers if you order now.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This would be a subscription service. When you join, you receive a fairly large scientific calculator.
Every issue would deliver a new calculator, made to the same price and specification as the original but proportionally smaller following the shrinking trend of the components inside.
When you
join you'll receive a display case that can hold all the calculators you'll have, regardless of how long you subscribe for.
Drake's Equation Calculator
Drake_27s_20Equation_20Calculator
[theircompetitor, Jun 01 2010]
[link]
|
| |
Shouldn't each one have a proportionally sized, clear-fronted recess in it, perhaps between the screen and keys, in which the next in the series can be stored, like a Russian doll? |
|
| |
I first saw an HP scientific in about 1973, or about 24 Moore periods ago. (a long story, but it cost about the same as a heart pacemaker at the time) |
|
| |
I'm guessing that it had a volume of about 360cm^3, so by now it's replacement would be about 0.021 mm^3. |
|
| |
Instead of a calculator, why not select some common item that is, in its current state of development, power-hungry, bulky, difficult to use and expensive - like cordless drills, microwave ovens, or democracy ? |
|
| |
I love the line in Linus Torvalds book about computers always costing $2000...you just get a lot more for your $2000 these days. |
|
| |
//a lot more what ?// Bits. Be careful: if you tilt it on it's
side, they fall out through the ventilation holes. |
|
| |
The size of a calculator is likely to remain roughly palm-sized due to the use-linkage with the human hand, with the buttons remaining pressable with normal digits. |
|
| |
What we are seeing however, that is arguably Moorian is lots more stuff packed into the same sized gizmo - if, for example, you hack an iThing, you have a Unix implementation in the palm of your hand, providing you with whatever programs you care to download/write yourself. |
|
| |
Annoyingly, I typed lengthy response explaing that Moore's law was far from dead. In fact, Mr. Moore says so himself in the linked article - at least for the next 10-20 years. Ah well, with a little irony you will have to make do with this: |
|
| |
Modern interpretations of Moore's law are more about processing capability per unit cost: it's not just about number of transistors per unit area. This challenge is intermittently replaced by non-transistor issues such as routing & connectivity, power/heat dissipation, stray capacitance, etc. |
|
| |
Yeah, per previous annos, this is too dated even today. Calculators aren't getting smaller, just emptier. Your fingers ability to push the keys are the limiting factor and have been for some time. If I'm going to sign up for this they need to start reasonably early and send me one of the pixie tube versions at least. |
|
| |
Oh and anyone thinking Moore's law is dead is not paying attention. How many cores did you have five years ago? Yes, clock speeds have flat lined, now we just do more with each tick. The article linked even says the law WILL die in a decade or two. |
|
| |
Economics, rather than technology is probably now the
limiting factor on Moore's law. If Intel spend $5bn on a chip
fabrication plant, they have to use that plant for a few
years to recoup their investment. If the next leap in
technology requires them to build a new chip fabrication
plant to make the next generation of chips and this new
plant costs $10bn, then they'll have to keep it going for
twice as long. This heavily incentivises them to persuade
people to carry on using the current generation of chips
for longer. They'll release new products, they'll use clever
marketing, but the technology won't advance until they've
recouped their investment. |
|
| |