Technothread
Technology is awesome, right?
What new technology has impressed you, or what new technology are you waiting for?
Obviously this will tend to be computer-based, but it doesn't have to be.
Personally, I like how RAM works; IIRC it's an array of capacitors. Charged -> 1, uncharged (or discharged) -> 0. Therefore if you have 8 capacitors which are in the sequenced
charged uncharged charged charged uncharged charged uncharged charged
you have
10110101 -> 181.
I think that's how it works anyway. It may be something other than capacitors, like transistors. Capacitors would make sense though; because the contents of RAM doesn't disappear immediately when you shut it off; it actually fades away very quickly. This would make sense because capacitors hold a charge for a small amount of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor
"
"
If it was transistors I don't think it would be volatile; I think that's how solid-state drives work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor#Transistor_as_a_switch
I am also interested in how CPUs work, although all I know about that is that it tends to be lots of transistors and logic gates (which are made up of transistors anyway, I think).
It looks like I was half right about RAM; it's actually a capacitor and a transistor that make up a bit; http://www.howstuffworks.com/ram.htm (I wasn't expecting this to go into anything technological, but actually, it does):
What new technology has impressed you, or what new technology are you waiting for?
Obviously this will tend to be computer-based, but it doesn't have to be.
Personally, I like how RAM works; IIRC it's an array of capacitors. Charged -> 1, uncharged (or discharged) -> 0. Therefore if you have 8 capacitors which are in the sequenced
charged uncharged charged charged uncharged charged uncharged charged
you have
10110101 -> 181.
I think that's how it works anyway. It may be something other than capacitors, like transistors. Capacitors would make sense though; because the contents of RAM doesn't disappear immediately when you shut it off; it actually fades away very quickly. This would make sense because capacitors hold a charge for a small amount of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor
"
| A capacitor can store electric energy when disconnected from its charging circuit, so it can be used like a temporary battery. Capacitors are commonly used in electronic devices to maintain power supply while batteries are being changed. (This prevents loss of information in volatile memory.) |
If it was transistors I don't think it would be volatile; I think that's how solid-state drives work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor#Transistor_as_a_switch
I am also interested in how CPUs work, although all I know about that is that it tends to be lots of transistors and logic gates (which are made up of transistors anyway, I think).
It looks like I was half right about RAM; it's actually a capacitor and a transistor that make up a bit; http://www.howstuffworks.com/ram.htm (I wasn't expecting this to go into anything technological, but actually, it does):
| a transistor and a capacitor are paired to create a memory cell, which represents a single bit of data. The capacitor holds the bit of information -- a 0 or a 1. The transistor acts as a switch that lets the control circuitry on the memory chip read the capacitor or change its state. |
Last edited on
Which will do what? I assume it will make everything lighter and smaller, but what else?
Cool.
At some point, batteries will be replaced by arrays of capacitors. A capacitor stores a charge from it's positive pin for a limited amount of time, and then discharges it through the negative pin. I think what they'll do is have a huge array of tiny capacitors which are connected each to a transistor. If the transistor is set to 0, the current flows to the next capacitor (when the previous one discharges) to be stored again (and it would probably loop to make it less finite; albeit true that the current and voltage would deteriorate). If the transistor is set to 1, the current would flow through to a separate track which would be the "battery"'s positive (and then to whatever needed powering).
Bare in mind that I am speculating on most of that. I'm sure that one day capacitors will replace batteries, but as for how they will do it... the above is just the way I would do it.
Currently transistors and capacitors are far too big to do anything like that, maybe these carbon electronics will make them small enough.
At some point, batteries will be replaced by arrays of capacitors. A capacitor stores a charge from it's positive pin for a limited amount of time, and then discharges it through the negative pin. I think what they'll do is have a huge array of tiny capacitors which are connected each to a transistor. If the transistor is set to 0, the current flows to the next capacitor (when the previous one discharges) to be stored again (and it would probably loop to make it less finite; albeit true that the current and voltage would deteriorate). If the transistor is set to 1, the current would flow through to a separate track which would be the "battery"'s positive (and then to whatever needed powering).
Bare in mind that I am speculating on most of that. I'm sure that one day capacitors will replace batteries, but as for how they will do it... the above is just the way I would do it.
Currently transistors and capacitors are far too big to do anything like that, maybe these carbon electronics will make them small enough.
I am waiting for the day when we can build something like, we just have to feed problem statement to a computer and it can write the elegant solution for it on it's own. :-]
Or may be, thinking in a realistic way, if we can feed it an algorithm then it can write the code on it's own. Ahh it would be so awesome. Although if it happens, it will be kindda disappointing too because then I won't get to write code. :(
Or may be, thinking in a realistic way, if we can feed it an algorithm then it can write the code on it's own. Ahh it would be so awesome. Although if it happens, it will be kindda disappointing too because then I won't get to write code. :(
I don't think that'd be fun; it'd ruin the whole programming thing. None of us would ever be employed and we'd be unlikely to be able to do it as a hobby, either.
There'd be no point in programming any more.
There'd be no point in programming any more.
| it'd ruin the whole programming thing |
Well, I don't agree. Let me prefix this by saying that I am addictive coder and I love coding to my very core.
Now, what I think is, development is not just about writing code. It's about creating elegant solutions for problems right.
So, design of your program's algorithm is the main task. Then you just have to follow set of rules to convert that algorithm into code. You can still have fun by finding problems and creating solutions for those problems and let computer write the code for that problem once you have given it algorithm. Imagine, how many problems we can solve this way.
Last edited on
I like writing code, not just coming up with solutions. I don't want to sit and design an algorithm and then have a computer write the code for me. I want the computer to do the job my code tells it to do.
Last edited on
But if the programmer knows the algorithm and he wants to tell the computer to translate it into code, he would need to give instructions to the computer, so he will use a programming language.
That higher level programming language may just have the tools to convert a finite amount of algorithms to sourcecode but the programmer needs higher flexibility, so it will eventually use directly the lower level programming language.
That higher level programming language may just have the tools to convert a finite amount of algorithms to sourcecode but the programmer needs higher flexibility, so it will eventually use directly the lower level programming language.
True... so basically you just want "extremely high programming languages". How about "Anaconda" or "Cobra" or something?
| I am waiting for the day |
| I hope for your sake you still have a few hundred years to live. |
Don't know about that.
Perhaps you might want to read about this
http://hothardware.com/News/Robots-Weld-Cars-Why-Not-Write-Code/
The title of that article may as well be "monkeys peel bananas, why not design and build rockets?" and there would be no discernible difference.
Uh-huh... Say, anyone wants to place bets on how long this company lasts?
| Simonyi's five-year-old startup, Intentional Software, is making software so smart that you can simply tell it what you want to do. Lay down a few basic parameters, and it will write its own code. No programming skills are necessary. |
I agree with you on the title. However, shame shame on all yall. Any person with an interest in technology, especially programmers and designers of every kind, should never ever put down an idea that could one day make things easier.
When computers are able to write usable code, imagine the time it would free up. People will be able to write the simple programs they need with little time spent learning to program. Skill programmers will be able to write larger and more complex programs thanks to the shortcuts provided by machines.
I want to see glasses with lens that display images/data to the wearer while appearing like normal glasses with ordinary lens.
Imagine watching the game anywhere you are no matter what you are doing without anyone being aware of it.
When computers are able to write usable code, imagine the time it would free up. People will be able to write the simple programs they need with little time spent learning to program. Skill programmers will be able to write larger and more complex programs thanks to the shortcuts provided by machines.
I want to see glasses with lens that display images/data to the wearer while appearing like normal glasses with ordinary lens.
Imagine watching the game anywhere you are no matter what you are doing without anyone being aware of it.
Last edited on
| People will be able to write the simple programs they need with little time spent learning to program. |
wachtn: Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm saying it's at least practically impossible (i.e. when [if?] we finally develop the algorithms, running them will require an obscene amount of resources), and at worst absolutely impossible.
Bazzy: Wait a second. VB.NET is not so easy to write in. It's basically C# with the tokens changed. It's completely different from VB6 and below.
Bazzy: Wait a second. VB.NET is not so easy to write in. It's basically C# with the tokens changed. It's completely different from VB6 and below.
Helios, how can you say "it's impossible". Sure, we wont see it happen tomorrow but nothing is impossible. We have the technology to print usable human organs, build structures atom by atom, taste light, and change the tv channel by thinking. I've even heard of computers programs that allow you to communicate with dogs. All it takes is enough smart people getting together to find a solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKd56D2mvN0 << very cool
Copy and paste code writers already exist. Why would it be impossible to create an AI that could generate cleaner, more usable/effective code?? After that step is cleared, why should it be impossible to teach the AI to write, bigger, and more complex code?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKd56D2mvN0 << very cool
Copy and paste code writers already exist. Why would it be impossible to create an AI that could generate cleaner, more usable/effective code?? After that step is cleared, why should it be impossible to teach the AI to write, bigger, and more complex code?
Wow, this conversation is going way too long. Anyways, I always thought that every programmer loves the idea of making things easier. But I guess I was wrong.
Every great invention started with an impossible idea. You are very knowledgeable about computers no doubt. But I guess you are turning down the idea little way too fast.
Based on the fact that the Co-founder of this company is Charles Simonyi, I guess it should be worth something.
My whole point is that, if 10-20 years from now, we are still fixing bugs then we have gone practically nowhere with technology.
Peace
Edit: Adding something to the "impossible" list http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qlHoxPioM
| I'm saying it's at least practically impossible |
Every great invention started with an impossible idea. You are very knowledgeable about computers no doubt. But I guess you are turning down the idea little way too fast.
| Uh-huh... Say, anyone wants to place bets on how long this company lasts? |
Based on the fact that the Co-founder of this company is Charles Simonyi, I guess it should be worth something.
My whole point is that, if 10-20 years from now, we are still fixing bugs then we have gone practically nowhere with technology.
Peace
Edit: Adding something to the "impossible" list http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qlHoxPioM
Last edited on