On 2021-06-14, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 22:00:08 +0100, Vir Campestris
>> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also concerned over Taiwan.
>>
>> That is a reasonable concern. The US really should establish full
>> diplomatic relations with Taiwan and if the commies don't like it,
>> screw 'em.
>
> Right. The world spends a lot of time tiptoeing around lest they hurt
> China’s feelings. China, or West Taiwan as the meme goes, needs to
> grow up and realize that the universe doesn’t care about their feelings.

Why should they? They don't care about the universe's feelings;
they have plans to conquer it all anyway.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:49:35 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> Indeed. We could just go on using our *old* computers until they
> fall apart, after all.

I dare say most people stop using old computers on account of being functionally obsolete, that is, the software no longer connected with the rest of the world. Physically they probably work just fine and have years of useful life in them.

Verizon has announced their old cellphones will cease working. Every subscriber has to kick in for 5G whether they need it or not.

Geez, I remember back when the Pentium chip came out. Suddenly the 486 was not only junk, but toxic. Everyone ran out to get the newer machine. Not that most people even needed it, but heaven forbid you weren't cool with old hardware. (And it was like that with earlier generations and later generations).

That's the computer biz. Always like that. Still is. (Followed the GM planned obsolesce model year approach).

If we weren't so obsessed with new stuff being so cool (and old stuff being so uncool) we could easily ride out any chip shortage for a few years.

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 9:30:02 AM UTC-6, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> As best as I can make out TSMC have over half the overall market and
> all of the high end (sub 10nm) - they'll take a *lot* of catching.

Not *all* of the high end. Samsung has some of that too.

And, of course, there's even Intel, even if it doesn't produce for third
parties; their 10nm, except for speed issues, is comparable to TSMC's
7nm.

John Savard

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 1:55:33 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:49:35 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> > Indeed. We could just go on using our *old* computers until they
> > fall apart, after all.

> I dare say most people stop using old computers on account of being
> functionally obsolete, that is, the software no longer connected with
> the rest of the world. Physically they probably work just fine and
> have years of useful life in them.

Well, these days, *connecting to the rest of the world* is the main
part of a computer's *job*.

> Verizon has announced their old cellphones will cease working.
> Every subscriber has to kick in for 5G whether they need it or not.

> Geez, I remember back when the Pentium chip came out. Suddenly
> the 486 was not only junk, but toxic. Everyone ran out to get the
> newer machine. Not that most people even needed it, but heaven
> forbid you weren't cool with old hardware. (And it was like that
> with earlier generations and later generations).

I remember trying out the beta of Tomb Raider, which required a
Pentium, on the new Pentium Overdrive chip I put in my 486
motherboard...

> That's the computer biz. Always like that. Still is. (Followed
> the GM planned obsolesce model year approach).

> If we weren't so obsessed with new stuff being so cool
> (and old stuff being so uncool) we could easily ride out
> any chip shortage for a few years.

I am distressed at the announcement by Nvidia that it's ceasing
driver support for Kepler video cards, given the current shortage.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 9:30:02 AM UTC-6, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> As best as I can make out TSMC have over half the overall market and
>> all of the high end (sub 10nm) - they'll take a *lot* of catching.
>
> Not *all* of the high end. Samsung has some of that too.
>
> And, of course, there's even Intel, even if it doesn't produce for third
> parties; their 10nm, except for speed issues, is comparable to TSMC's
> 7nm.

I seem to recall Intel does produce for third parties these days? Intel
Foundry Services was announced in March.

Might have a bit of credibility problem as they are new and not exactly
known for grit, having pulled out in a previous attempt after a year in
2003.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 21:42:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 1:55:33 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:49:35 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> > Indeed. We could just go on using our *old* computers until they
>> > fall apart, after all.
>
>> I dare say most people stop using old computers on account of being
>> functionally obsolete, that is, the software no longer connected with
>> the rest of the world. Physically they probably work just fine and
>> have years of useful life in them.
>
>Well, these days, *connecting to the rest of the world* is the main
>part of a computer's *job*.

Yes, and connecting to the rest of the world usually requires encryption.
Encryption, as it is implemented today, requires security certificates, which
expire. Although, for example, there is a mechanism in most browsers to
add new certificates, apparently the only effective way to get them is with
a browser upgrade to a newer version. Eventually the latest version of a
browser requires a newer version of the OS. And then eventually the newer
version of the OS no longer runs on older hardware and requires a newer
computer.

undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in
news:bb5fb162-30be-46cd-b90d-39de5aecaaa3n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:49:35 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> Indeed. We could just go on using our *old* computers until they
>> fall apart, after all.
>
> I dare say most people stop using old computers on account of being
> functionally obsolete, that is, the software no longer connected with
> the rest of the world. Physically they probably work just fine and
> have years of useful life in them.
>
> Verizon has announced their old cellphones will cease working. Every
> subscriber has to kick in for 5G whether they need it or not.
>
> Geez, I remember back when the Pentium chip came out. Suddenly the
> 486 was not only junk, but toxic. Everyone ran out to get the newer
> machine. Not that most people even needed it, but heaven forbid you
> weren't cool with old hardware. (And it was like that with earlier
> generations and later generations).
>
> That's the computer biz. Always like that. Still is. (Followed the
> GM planned obsolesce model year approach).
>
> If we weren't so obsessed with new stuff being so cool (and old stuff
> being so uncool) we could easily ride out any chip shortage for a few
> years.

This has kind of reversed and there are now a lot of folks looking for
old 286/386/486 computers to relive their childhood days playing DOS or
early Windows games. That is a lot of what is going on at the
r/VintageComputers reddit.

--
Clark G
* take away the em's to reply

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 23:20:10 -0000 (UTC)
Clark G <clarkm.geimsler@ieeemmm.org> wrote:

> undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in
> news:bb5fb162-30be-46cd-b90d-39de5aecaaa3n@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:49:35 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed. We could just go on using our *old* computers until they
> >> fall apart, after all.
> >
> > I dare say most people stop using old computers on account of being
> > functionally obsolete, that is, the software no longer connected with
> > the rest of the world. Physically they probably work just fine and
> > have years of useful life in them.
> >
> > Verizon has announced their old cellphones will cease working. Every
> > subscriber has to kick in for 5G whether they need it or not.
> >
> > Geez, I remember back when the Pentium chip came out. Suddenly the
> > 486 was not only junk, but toxic. Everyone ran out to get the newer
> > machine. Not that most people even needed it, but heaven forbid you
> > weren't cool with old hardware. (And it was like that with earlier
> > generations and later generations).
> >
> > That's the computer biz. Always like that. Still is. (Followed the
> > GM planned obsolesce model year approach).
> >
> > If we weren't so obsessed with new stuff being so cool (and old stuff
> > being so uncool) we could easily ride out any chip shortage for a few
> > years.
>
> This has kind of reversed and there are now a lot of folks looking for
> old 286/386/486 computers to relive their childhood days playing DOS or
> early Windows games. That is a lot of what is going on at the
> r/VintageComputers reddit.
>
Never went away; I run an XP machine to allow me to run DOS programs (apps) & write asm code.
I play duke3d for "relaxation".
> --
> Clark G
> * take away the em's to reply

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 5:20:11 PM UTC-6, Clark G wrote:
> undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in
> news:bb5fb162-30be-46cd...@googlegroups.com:

> > If we weren't so obsessed with new stuff being so cool (and old stuff
> > being so uncool) we could easily ride out any chip shortage for a few
> > years.

> This has kind of reversed and there are now a lot of folks looking for
> old 286/386/486 computers to relive their childhood days playing DOS or
> early Windows games. That is a lot of what is going on at the
> r/VintageComputers reddit.

While it is true that your old Commodore 64 has now completed its
evolution from junk to antique, I don't think that counts as a reversal
of the demand for up-to-date hardware.

However, that trend _is_ coming to an end. As Clarke pointed out early
in Profiles of the Future, new technologies follow an S-curve... and we're
at the end of Dennard Scaling, which is why computers haven't kept getting
even faster after they hit 3-5 GHz, and Moore's Law is slowing down too.

This doesn't mean an end of progress is *imminent*, however; Moore's Law
will continue from today's 7nm chips down to 3nm and even denser, and
there are other possible technologies on the horizon such as molybdenum
disulfide.

But in a few years, progress will slow to the point where a computer is
an investment that will last decades.

John Savard

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> This doesn't mean an end of progress is *imminent*, however; Moore's Law
> will continue from today's 7nm chips down to 3nm and even denser, and
> there are other possible technologies on the horizon such as molybdenum
> disulfide.

Oh the slogan possibilities eg. "Molyslip chips for low friction
computing".

> But in a few years, progress will slow to the point where a computer is
> an investment that will last decades.

You are almost certainly right ... but that is the sort of
prediction that usually comes shortly before something unexpectedly turns
things upside down.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:30:02 AM UTC-6, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> > This doesn't mean an end of progress is *imminent*, however; Moore's Law
> > will continue from today's 7nm chips down to 3nm and even denser, and
> > there are other possible technologies on the horizon such as molybdenum
> > disulfide.

> Oh the slogan possibilities eg. "Molyslip chips for low friction
> computing".

Amazingly enough, because the electrons travel in ballistic paths, friction is
what is lowered here, of a kind.

> > But in a few years, progress will slow to the point where a computer is
> > an investment that will last decades.

> You are almost certainly right ... but that is the sort of
> prediction that usually comes shortly before something unexpectedly turns
> things upside down.

Yes, that certainly happened around 1905 or so...

From new materials to quantum computing, there are hints of new developments
on the horizon. But there may at least be a pause before new improvements come
to market...

John Savard

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 10:16:36 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:30:02 AM UTC-6, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> > This doesn't mean an end of progress is *imminent*, however; Moore's Law
>> > will continue from today's 7nm chips down to 3nm and even denser, and
>> > there are other possible technologies on the horizon such as molybdenum
>> > disulfide.
>
>> Oh the slogan possibilities eg. "Molyslip chips for low friction
>> computing".
>
>Amazingly enough, because the electrons travel in ballistic paths, friction is
>what is lowered here, of a kind.
>
>> > But in a few years, progress will slow to the point where a computer is
>> > an investment that will last decades.
>
>> You are almost certainly right ... but that is the sort of
>> prediction that usually comes shortly before something unexpectedly turns
>> things upside down.
>
>Yes, that certainly happened around 1905 or so...
>
>From new materials to quantum computing, there are hints of new developments
>on the horizon. But there may at least be a pause before new improvements come
>to market...

I suspect that we're going to see a pattern similar to aircraft. I
started to say "automobiles and aircraft" but automobiles seem to bne
on the toe of another growth curve, where a thrifty grocery-getter can
show taillights to what used to be the definition of fast.

But aircraft today aren't actually any more performant than aircraft
50 years ago--they have nicer instrumentation and lower control forces
and they are more economical and comfortable and can carry more load,
but they aren't actually faster or more maneuverable.

I suspect computers are hitting that point.

According to J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>:
>But aircraft today aren't actually any more performant than aircraft
>50 years ago--they have nicer instrumentation and lower control forces
>and they are more economical and comfortable and can carry more load,
>but they aren't actually faster or more maneuverable.

Even longer than that. The de Havilland Comet in 1952 did everything
of signficance that current jets do. It had a pressurized cabin,
turbojet engines, and could fly at 400 kt as high as 42,000 ft. The
improved Comet 3 could fly at 450 kt as high as 45,000 ft. Modern jets
are much more reliable (the early Comets had design flaws that caused
some awful crashes), the range is much longer than 2800 mi, and some
are considerably bigger, but they don't fly much faster and they work
basically the same. Maybe someone will come up with a practical SST
but I'm not holding my breath.

I can believe that raw computer CPU performance is hitting a wall but I think
there's still some interesting work in special purpose processors and integrated
peripherals. The Apple M1 has a conventional ARM CPU, but it also has a GPU
that can do over 2 Tflops, a 16 core neural network engine, a image DSP, and
some other controllers and the whole thing draws only 7 watts.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 22:03:44 -0000 (UTC)
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> The Apple M1 has a conventional ARM CPU, but it also has a GPU
> that can do over 2 Tflops,

OK now that has an oldish headline ringing in my head ... but from
where and how old ?

"The Teraflops are Coming"

I'm pretty sure it wasn't talking about laptop chips!

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 5:00:02 PM UTC-6, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> OK now that has an oldish headline ringing in my head ... but from
> where and how old ?
>
> "The Teraflops are Coming"
>
> I'm pretty sure it wasn't talking about laptop chips!

I could not find _any_ results on that phrase in association with oldish
supercomputers. I found a web result about a version of the Sony Playstation
witn nine teraflops.

But without the exact phrase, I found that in 1992 Popular Science had an
article "The Teraflops Race", about the race to produce the first supercomputer
with the capacity of one teraflop.

John Savard

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>:
>> But aircraft today aren't actually any more performant than aircraft
>> 50 years ago--they have nicer instrumentation and lower control forces
>> and they are more economical and comfortable and can carry more load,
>> but they aren't actually faster or more maneuverable.
>
> Even longer than that. The de Havilland Comet in 1952 did everything
> of signficance that current jets do. It had a pressurized cabin,
> turbojet engines, and could fly at 400 kt as high as 42,000 ft. The
> improved Comet 3 could fly at 450 kt as high as 45,000 ft. Modern jets
> are much more reliable (the early Comets had design flaws that caused
> some awful crashes), the range is much longer than 2800 mi, and some
> are considerably bigger, but they don't fly much faster and they work
> basically the same. Maybe someone will come up with a practical SST
> but I'm not holding my breath.

On it’s way, apparently.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57361193

>
> I can believe that raw computer CPU performance is hitting a wall but I think
> there's still some interesting work in special purpose processors and integrated
> peripherals. The Apple M1 has a conventional ARM CPU, but it also has a GPU
> that can do over 2 Tflops, a 16 core neural network engine, a image DSP, and
> some other controllers and the whole thing draws only 7 watts.
>

--
Pete

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 20:15:50 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

>John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> According to J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>:
>>> But aircraft today aren't actually any more performant than aircraft
>>> 50 years ago--they have nicer instrumentation and lower control forces
>>> and they are more economical and comfortable and can carry more load,
>>> but they aren't actually faster or more maneuverable.
>>
>> Even longer than that. The de Havilland Comet in 1952 did everything
>> of signficance that current jets do. It had a pressurized cabin,
>> turbojet engines, and could fly at 400 kt as high as 42,000 ft. The
>> improved Comet 3 could fly at 450 kt as high as 45,000 ft. Modern jets
>> are much more reliable (the early Comets had design flaws that caused
>> some awful crashes), the range is much longer than 2800 mi, and some
>> are considerably bigger, but they don't fly much faster and they work
>> basically the same. Maybe someone will come up with a practical SST
>> but I'm not holding my breath.
>
>On it’s way, apparently.
>
>https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57361193

Looks to me like another scam to separate venture capitalists from
their money.

Company never built an aircraft before.
Aircraft is smaller than Concorde
Aircraft is slower than Concorde
Aircraft runs on "green" fuel which is likely to be more expensive
than that used by Concorde
Aircraft doesn't have technology to reduce sonic boom so no overland
routes.
Over most of the transpacific routes it's going to have to land
somewhere to refuel (unless they plan on operating tankers which is
more cost).

Maybe the thing will actuall be usable at a profit, but in the time
frame they're talking about for it to become operational they may be
competing with 30 minute to anywhere rocket service.

>
>>
>> I can believe that raw computer CPU performance is hitting a wall but I think
>> there's still some interesting work in special purpose processors and integrated
>> peripherals. The Apple M1 has a conventional ARM CPU, but it also has a GPU
>> that can do over 2 Tflops, a 16 core neural network engine, a image DSP, and
>> some other controllers and the whole thing draws only 7 watts.
>>

On 2021-06-19, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 5:20:11 PM UTC-6, Clark G wrote:
>> undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in
>> news:bb5fb162-30be-46cd...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> > If we weren't so obsessed with new stuff being so cool (and old stuff
>> > being so uncool) we could easily ride out any chip shortage for a few
>> > years.
>
>> This has kind of reversed and there are now a lot of folks looking for
>> old 286/386/486 computers to relive their childhood days playing DOS or
>> early Windows games. That is a lot of what is going on at the
>> r/VintageComputers reddit.
>
> While it is true that your old Commodore 64 has now completed its
> evolution from junk to antique, I don't think that counts as a reversal
> of the demand for up-to-date hardware.
>
> However, that trend _is_ coming to an end. As Clarke pointed out early
> in Profiles of the Future, new technologies follow an S-curve... and we're
> at the end of Dennard Scaling, which is why computers haven't kept getting
> even faster after they hit 3-5 GHz, and Moore's Law is slowing down too.
>
> This doesn't mean an end of progress is *imminent*, however; Moore's Law
> will continue from today's 7nm chips down to 3nm and even denser, and
> there are other possible technologies on the horizon such as molybdenum
> disulfide.
>
> But in a few years, progress will slow to the point where a computer is
> an investment that will last decades.
>
> John Savard

+++
--
greymausg@mail.com
Down the wrong mousehole.

According to J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>:
>>> Maybe someone will come up with a practical SST but I'm not holding my breath.
>>
>>On it’s way, apparently.
>>
>>https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57361193
>
>Looks to me like another scam to separate venture capitalists from
>their money.

I've seen the press releases and like I said I'm not holding my breath.

The physics of supersonic flight make it rather implausible that they can make
it cost competitive with regular jets. Also, this is supposed to be an all
business class plane, and regular international business class has gotten vastly
better since the era of the Concorde. There are flat beds where you can actually
sleep if you want, or decent Internet if you want to work. The hours in the air are
not "wasted" like they were when your only options were a bad movie, the book you brought,
or getting sloshed on thin air and cocktails.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly