Limit to processor speed?

drumguy1384 wrote:
"Cermo" wrote in message

.... snip ...

...or free health care in america...

You don't really want "free" (i.e. governement subsidized) health
care in America, trust me. Look at Canada for crying out loud.
They've been doing it for years, and people come here and PAY for
it ... because they can actually SEE a DOCTOR. Plus, "free" is
never really free ...

Name one thing government has taken over and done better and/or
cheaper than the private sector. Government control makes things
bloated and wasteful.

Health care in Canada. Those that need it get it. The average
lifespan is higher than in the US. Some are impatient, have
money, and go to the US where the twin gods of money and oil
prevail. Certainly there are glitches, very few human enterprises
are perfect.

--
Chuck F ) )
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
http://cbfalconer.home.att.net USE worldnet address!

"BarryNL" wrote in message ...
drumguy1384 wrote:
"Cermo" wrote in message
om...

Looking forward to the first quantum processor, which carries out your
instructions five seconds before it occurs to you to input them.

I might be joking, but somehow I think we'll see it before we see a
50mpg standard among production automobiles...


We'll be using some sort of alternative fuel (i.e. hydrogen) before that
happens.


...or free health care in america...



You don't really want "free" (i.e. governement subsidized) health care
in
America, trust me. Look at Canada for crying out loud. They've been
doing it
for years, and people come here and PAY for it ... because they can
actually
SEE a DOCTOR. Plus, "free" is never really free ...

Name one thing government has taken over and done better and/or cheaper
than
the private sector. Government control makes things bloated and
wasteful.

Er, you obviously haven't been on a train in the UK since it was
privatised then.

Nope ...

I guess you never tried to get healthcare as a poor
person either.

Doctors and hospitals don't want to turn away poor patients, and in fact by
law they CAN'T turn away someone who needs medical attention.

The problem is that we Americans want to live forever without living healthy
lifestyles, and the politicians say "Sure! We'll pay for that ... just vote
for me!" So many government handouts and give-aways are just vote-buying in
disguise ... it's appalling.

As far as getting medical treatment as a poor person is concerned ... The
state of Louisiana (where I live) has one of the greatest charity hospital
systems in the world. It is similar to Canada's system, though not
government funded. And I'll guarantee it is much more efficient, and less of
a drag on the economy, because every dollar counts.

Take public school for instance. The government spends more per child than
any private school (and subsequently taxes us to pay for it) yet private
school teachers make easily twice as much. And it costs less to send a child
to a decent private school (not those high-brow elite schools, but decent)
than we collectively pay to send a child to public school. Not to mention
private school students tend to score higher on college entrance exams.

Why should I have to pay to send someone else's children to school? And why
should I have to pay someone else's doctor bill? If I wanted to do that I
would donate money to a charity hospital (which I do when I can)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not unsympathetic to those who have it bad off ... I
just think there are much better ways to do it than with bloated and
wasteful government beurocracy.

By the way, I make about $18K a year ... I think the poverty line is $16K.
So I am by no means well off. When I go to the dentist, I pay her. When I
need medical treatment I pay for it if I can, if it's too much I'll go stand
in line at the charity hospital. Because the people that fund it WANT to
help me, and I'll be damned if I'll endorse a system that takes money from
people without asking to pay for my stuff. I don't like it being done to me,
and I won't participate in them doing it to someone else.


Drumguy

-
drumguy1384 stood up at show-n-tell, in ,
and said:

"BarryNL" wrote in message
...
drumguy1384 wrote:
"Cermo" wrote in message
om...

Looking forward to the first quantum processor, which carries out
your instructions five seconds before it occurs to you to input
them.

I might be joking, but somehow I think we'll see it before we see a
50mpg standard among production automobiles...


We'll be using some sort of alternative fuel (i.e. hydrogen) before
that happens.


...or free health care in america...



You don't really want "free" (i.e. governement subsidized) health
care in America, trust me. Look at Canada for crying out loud.
They've been doing it for years, and people come here and PAY for
it ... because they can actually SEE a DOCTOR. Plus, "free" is
never really free ...

Name one thing government has taken over and done better and/or
cheaper than the private sector. Government control makes things
bloated and wasteful.

Er, you obviously haven't been on a train in the UK since it was
privatised then.

Nope ...

I guess you never tried to get healthcare as a poor
person either.

Doctors and hospitals don't want to turn away poor patients, and in
fact by law they CAN'T turn away someone who needs medical attention.

The problem is that we Americans want to live forever without living
healthy lifestyles, and the politicians say "Sure! We'll pay for that
... just vote for me!" So many government handouts and give-aways are
just vote-buying in disguise ... it's appalling.

As far as getting medical treatment as a poor person is concerned ...
The state of Louisiana (where I live) has one of the greatest charity
hospital systems in the world. It is similar to Canada's system,
though not government funded. And I'll guarantee it is much more
efficient, and less of a drag on the economy, because every dollar
counts.


Just an observation, here. You are describing a government run operation.
State and/or city government. So, your general term of 'government' was
restricted to Federal government, correct? I won't disagree with you, about
the ****ty status of the US Federal government. It's been crooked, and
greedy, from day one. But, there is greed everywhere. Just not so
prevalent and accepted, as is in our 'great nation'.



Take public school for instance. The government spends more per child
than any private school (and subsequently taxes us to pay for it) yet
private school teachers make easily twice as much. And it costs less
to send a child to a decent private school (not those high-brow elite
schools, but decent) than we collectively pay to send a child to
public school. Not to mention private school students tend to score
higher on college entrance exams.

The US government spends more, on the 'war on drugs' (if pot and cocaine
were legal, the US gov't would die, funding-wise), and military, and (now)
the 'war on terrorism', than it EVER did on education and welfare. If you
research, you can see a common thread of greed and lust. A desire to
dominate the world. That's all I see (or, ever have) from the US Fed. The
main core of every major US law appears to me as based on 'profit margin'
for the ones enacting the laws. Imagine flying a lear jet, to work, every
morning (maybe 33 days a year that you work). So exemplary of this nation's
ideals.




Why should I have to pay to send someone else's children to school?
And why should I have to pay someone else's doctor bill? If I wanted
to do that I would donate money to a charity hospital (which I do
when I can)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not unsympathetic to those who have it bad
off ... I just think there are much better ways to do it than with
bloated and wasteful government beurocracy.

By the way, I make about $18K a year ... I think the poverty line is
$16K. So I am by no means well off. When I go to the dentist, I pay
her. When I need medical treatment I pay for it if I can, if it's too
much I'll go stand in line at the charity hospital. Because the
people that fund it WANT to help me, and I'll be damned if I'll
endorse a system that takes money from people without asking to pay
for my stuff. I don't like it being done to me, and I won't
participate in them doing it to someone else.

I would'nt mind paying for taxes that ACTUALLY were useful. The tax
structure we have, at present, only lines polititicans, big business, and
lawmaker's pockets. I would not mind shelling out $40/month if it were
going to people that needed it. As it is, not one of our tax dollars is
being spent honestly nor correctly. Gov't officials (state and, federal,
and city) hire contractors that overcharge, for a reason. Kickbacks.
They're all crooked, period. I'd rather pay 50% tax, and have it utilized,
than pay the 25% I'm paying now and have it line some fatass old fart's
pockets... drinking martinis and ****ing some 25yr old bimbo (while his wife
is raising their kids and spending most days at the country club) and flying
all over the country on 'business trips'.


I'm 'this far' from moving to a third world country. 'This far...' Might
not wanna be here, when the Arabs finally do get a nuke into this country,
anyway. The whole world hates us. Might be safer not being from the USA,
for a while.




Drumguy

--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit

I ordered one of them WD Raptor 36GB SATA 10K drives. I'll let ya know how
it works.

Exactly, never say that it cant go any faster, I guarantee that you'll
be wrong. Sort of like Bill Gates' famous quote "640k is enough memory
for anyone"

Conor wrote:
In article , jnichols2
@austin.rr.com says...

"Conor" wrote in message
et...

In article ,
says...

Isn't there a limit to processor speed?
I mean they cant simply go on bringing ever faster processors ?

There should be some theoritical limit to it. what is that?


Physics comes into play. Currently pretty much at the limit of current
technology.


I remember reading about that - in an article about the 8Mhz 286 processor.


True. THe limits then was the die size they could manufacture at.

Rickster wrote in message m...
Exactly, never say that it cant go any faster, I guarantee that you'll
be wrong. Sort of like Bill Gates' famous quote "640k is enough memory
for anyone"

Conor wrote:
In article , jnichols2
@austin.rr.com says...

"Conor" wrote in message
et...

In article ,
says...

Isn't there a limit to processor speed?
I mean they cant simply go on bringing ever faster processors ?

There should be some theoritical limit to it. what is that?


Physics comes into play. Currently pretty much at the limit of current
technology.


I remember reading about that - in an article about the 8Mhz 286 processor.


True. THe limits then was the die size they could manufacture at.



I recall reading an artical saying quite simply that around the year
2010 we'll reach the limit of micro technolegy. Basically saying, from
there on, to get more, we're going to have to start making them
bigger, as physics won't allow to make it any smaller. However, it was
stated as a theory, and human race is an inventive one. Who knows?

the limit he was talking about is related to the size of transistors,
limited by the atomic size itself.

Frequency (Hz) is not a limit by itself.. exept, like you said, from the
relations between resistance (heat) and amplitudes


Loknar

BarryNL wrote:

ZITBoy wrote:
Isn't there a limit to processor speed?
I mean they cant simply go on bringing ever faster processors ?

There should be some theoritical limit to it. what is that?

I suspect we're already seeing the end of the Gigahertz race. Witness
that Intel are only going to increase clock speed around 10% this year
compared to around 50% last year - same with AMD. Not that it's
technologically impossible to go faster, but there doesn't seem to be
market demand for it. Even the lowest end processors (Celeron 1.8Ghz)
are more than powerful enough for most office use. Only high end gamers
are really looking for more power and they're not a big enough market
segment to justify Intel and AMD investing big bucks producing faster
processors. High-end workstations may continue to demand more
performance, but RISC chips, many of which are nowhere near 3Ghz yet,
are players in that market.

The CPU speed has not increased much lately because they have not
reduced the die size lately. Nearly all speed improvements come from
making the chip smaller. The reason to make the chip smaller is cost.
So as they work to reduce cost you get speed improvements for free. So
don't think they are reaching the end of the MHz race. The next die
size reduction is around the corner.


I think future research will be into server technologies with more
emphasis on multiprocessor machines. AMD are clearly taking this route
with the Opteron. I think the days of the Wintel box may be numbered
anyway. I suspect future (business) computing will be based on
client-server technology with many dumb terminals sharing a central
processor (this is certainly Sun's vision of the future). Back to the
days of the mainframe, really.


--

Rick "rickman" Collins


Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave 301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7666 FAX

I think its a safe bet that the speed of light will be as fast as any processor
will ever go. Assuming of course that someone could design a processor that
fast.

Kheir112 wrote:
I think its a safe bet that the speed of light will be as fast as any processor
will ever go. Assuming of course that someone could design a processor that
fast.

But then you could improve performance by having more than one :-)

--
MCR - MAME, History In The Making
Want ftp access? get details at http://www.mcrs.no-ip.org
or email mcr at lazarus.org.uk - Full 0.73 set verified
and needed sooners, All testdrivers (except 3 missing)