Computer Capable Of Calculating 640TBs Of Data In One Billionth Of A Second (available to public by

originally posted by: 0utbr3aK
All this incredibly smart science and technology talk and Meg Whitman had to slaughter her credibility by using the term drownding @28:39. Get off the stage lady, you have no idea what is going on.

It is pretty amazing that the term petabyte will be very common in the near future. memory in the terabyte level? that is going to be incredible.

Electrons compute, photons communicate, and ions store. I was so excited to hear about graphene and the potential for fast data transfer, but this seems to blow it out of the water. Graphene for batteries, and this technology for computing, the power seems limitless.

An open source cloud environment? sounds fancy but also dangerous. He was talking about making airline data anonymous over the cloud, but leave it to a hacker and this data can be revealed. Cyber criminals are going to hit an all time high soon.

But with less energy and insane speeds, the networks of tomorrow are going to be cheap and faster than we will ever need.

the future is scary and enticing, i cannot wait to see what happens next. time to invest some stock into HP and hope for the best.


a reply to: Grimpachi

eh the solution to hackers WRT banks, military, corporations, infrastructure and so forth is to keep computers with those functions off the damned public internet. there is no reason in hell for any such system to even have common internet connectivity. keep them on their own dedicated net with only secure connections for those that need access such as technicians and execs. do not even connect a sensitive system to a computer that then has an open internet connection. and connect a generator to the gonads of anyone who violates access or portable storage media security protocols.

an F'ing water purification system or train signaling system or ATC node has no earthly reason to be connected to the public web. "well the e coli sensing lab computer at the water plant was lonely and wanted to shop on ebay." It's insane that sensitive systems that are know targets of hackers, foreign militaries, Industrial espionage, terrorists and cyber criminals have any form of publicly access portal at all.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Aliensun

I suppose that it would be wrong to say that the average person would have absolutely never, even have a need for such a 200Tb smartphone, but that won't stop them from being put into the marketplace. Honestly, who is going to NEED that much power in a handheld?

Yeah, but remember that IBM couldn't envision that anyone would ever have a need to have more than 640K bytes base memory in a desktop...i actually remember those days!

I'd imagine within 10 years or so of the appearence of a 200Tb smartphone, that same 200Tb smartphone will seem quite quaint.

Hi Mr X

Early on in this thread I wrote

Who was it that said a pc would never need more than 650K of memory?

Shadoefax responded telling me it was Bill gates, and then told me Gates didn't really say it!

You have now posted that is was said by IBM.

Now, had someone asked me the same question I suspect I'd have said it was Gates, but your comment about IBM has stirred my somewhat aging grey matter into suspecting you may be correct.

Just wondering if you could provide any evidence for it being IBM because Gates denies having ever said it.

An absolutely useless piece of info I know, I'm just curious

Stop feeding it then.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

Just wondering if you could provide any evidence for it being IBM because Gates denies having ever said it.

An absolutely useless piece of info I know, I'm just curious

In all likelihood, it was probably never actually said. Well, not until it was misquoted to Gates by many magazines and papers.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: VoidHawk

Just wondering if you could provide any evidence for it being IBM because Gates denies having ever said it.

An absolutely useless piece of info I know, I'm just curious

In all likelihood, it was probably never actually said. Well, not until it was misquoted to Gates by many magazines and papers.

Hi peck420

You may be correct, but it was many many years ago (I'm getting on a bit) that I heard it, I remember it often being quoted in computer magazines etc. I suspect someone did actually say it, but who?

originally posted by: VoidHawk
You may be correct, but it was many many years ago (I'm getting on a bit) that I heard it, I remember it often being quoted in computer magazines etc. I suspect someone did actually say it, but who?

The first recorded version of it was the April 29, 1985 issue of InfoWorld (James E. Fawcette ), no references given.

After that, it became pretty common.

So, I guess that until more is discovered, the quote should belong to Mr. Fawcette.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Clasper

I suppose that it would be wrong to say that the average person would have absolutely never, even have a need for such a 200Tb smartphone, but that won't stop them from being put into the marketplace. Honestly, who is going to NEED that much power in a handheld?

(well, to rebut myself, I can imagine such a device could be programed to be an instant two-way translator of every language in the world, putting the transposed words of each language into the proper conversational context for the other. An old sci-fi dream come to life, no one would need to bother to learn another language.)

I worked on high-end workstations back in the 1990's. You had to pay $120,000 to get a workstation that ran at 60MHz and did texture mapping at 1280x1024. Now you get a smartphone that does HD resolutions with texture mapping for $500

They also used to say that there would never be more than a handful of computers in the whole world.

mmm..nice...could be used for protein folding ...but that is unlikely... or maybe to grab whatever bitcoins are left out there !

To: VoidHawk

640k and it was some engineer at IBM, I believe it was due to the way they built the system to max out at that.

a reply to: Grimpachi

If I can finally get one, Microsoft will still make me wait for Windows to load!

No computer is fast enough if a human has to wait for it.

All im thinking is oclus rift and this thing with photo realistic cgi gaming oooooh baby unlimited speed power and size imagine the virtual worlds you could create

Who was it that said a pc would never need more than 650K of memory?

Bill Gates, and its been 256k RAM(Not total Memory, including mass storage.)...
You cant have enough processing Power EVER!
Think of scientific applications, like galaxy collision or weather simulations.
Or Games for that matter...
Atm all this is highly restricted by System resources.

Occulus R will be like a taperecorder for Commodore64...Compared...

Imagine VR were you actually hook up your
consciousness to the game itself.

Smallminded ATS users.... THINK

BIG

originally posted by: Miccey
Occulus R will be like a taperecorder for Commodore64...Compared...

Imagine VR were you actually hook up your
consciousness to the game itself.

Smallminded ATS users.... THINK

BIG

There could be several levels of the game. One, you playing with your consciousness independently. Another where you can "be" hundreds of consciousnesses at once, and play with other teams of consciousnesses. Or throw in each pixel as a separate entity which you can either "be", control, or evolve along lines of becoming an ally or a counter-efforted self-governing adversary.