Universal Computer Memory

reminded me of the hyper cd rom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_CD-ROM

my fist is too big

Could you post the link that actually fucking tells what the breakthrough was. I've had enough vaporware tech that claimed to do the same thing, like racetrack memory.

>A new type of computer memory which (((could))) solve the digital technology energy crisis has been invented and patented by Lancaster scientists.
Pro tip: the words "could", "might", and "may" means it's futurist garbage.

/thread

> designed for..
> data centers
>> and by 2025 a ‘tsunami of data’ is expected to consume a fifth of global electricity.
>> But this new device would immediately reduce peak power consumption in data centres by a fifth.
this is some straight out misleading gobbledygook based in the land of fantasy and the make believe. oh well, i guess they'll say anything to try and make their patent worth something instead of being theoretical nonsense that has never left a lab.

Wrap your hand in a circle so that you can only see the center of the gif. It'll slow down. The particles are just moving faster as they get farther away.

>could replace
>could solve
>promises to
>expected to
>would
>would also

Attached: Batman.jpg (640x640, 100K)

~~computer~~ ~~science~~

>Dr Pavel

Attached: VID-20190121-WA0002.webm (480x512, 875K)

lol why is he so jiggly

theres a link to the paper in the article

he's a big guy

Who gives a shit. Back in the day copyrights and patents lasted only a few years, which was enough to make some dough if your shit was good. Today they basically never expire, so all new stuff of note just winds up in a vault unless one of the huge botnet companies can find some nefarious use for it.

If we had today's laws a hundred years ago the computer would never even have been invented. Shit has to filter into the public domain within reasonable time if actual progress is to happen. We're entering a technological dark age really fast and it shows. When was the last time you saw something really new?

>When was the last time you saw something really new?
Elon Musk exists

Yeah, the king of vaporware.

I heard the same shit years ago with memristors.
Once a viable product has been made, then I'll give a shit,

what the fuck how? and why?

Attached: 1547428287114.jpg (500x500, 45K)

>by 2025 the botnet is expected to consume a fifth of global electricity
Well there you have it. The botnet is literally killing the planet. Time for the EPA to step and crack down on the lines of code in web software and set limits on data hoarding so all these severs don't consume everything.

But then the botnet can't analyze every aspect of your life down to your IoT toilet measuring the molecular composition of your dumps. How are the coming technocrat overlords going to know how to tailor your personalized propaganda and medication properly without this shit? Do you even dystopia, bro?

>teslas on the roads
>spacexs launching sattelites and landing themselves
"vaporware" used to mean the thing didnt come out. what does it mean now?

I said something new. Cars aren't new.

batteries with the ability to power electric cars for extended use are new.

Sure, things improve. You could compare a 1950s mainframe to a smartphone and be amazed, but in reality all of the components of that phone would be completely understood by a 50s electrical engineer based on his contemporary understanding. So yeah, we've improved on shit, we have better precision in our manufacturing and so on. But innovation isn't really happening anymore which was more my point. I mean, what was the last really significant innovation that actually changed things in a real and radical way? The transistor? The laser maybe?

>Sure, things improve
tell that to the other electric car companies that don't have tesla batteries.

Who gives a shit about teslas. Do you claim teslas have changed society technologically in any significant way? It's a fucking car for rich hipsters that runs on coal instead of oil. We've had cars for 150 years or something. You're easily impressed.

>what was the last really significant innovation that actually changed things in a real and radical way? The transistor? The laser maybe?
see OP

Or just build more nuclear plants like we should've been doing for the last 50 years.

Guantum gompuders! :-DDD

Attached: 1522054023484.gif (512x481, 402K)

Yeah, wake me up when that pans out.

Actually, some of the first cars ran straight on coal, which was a better idea because it's more energy efficient than burning it in a power plant and then transporting at loss to your Tesla.

Attached: Capture_d%u2019écran_2016-10-14_à_21.26.28.png (802x648, 645K)

>key stokes

I'm not going to take an article typed out by a monkey seriously.

Look the musktards are here.

You have to be 18+ to post in this chinese cartoon forum

I certainly hope you're comparing those coal cars to the same era of electric cars, because modern electric cars are EXTREMELY efficient compared to old coal powered steam-propelled vehicles, even with conversion losses and battery bleed.

no it isnt because the power plant gets all the power rom the coal where you only get some with your cold engine that you think is hot
now peanut oil? now we're talking, rudolf diesel designed his engine for peanut oil, not "diesel"

95% of academic 'supermemory' or 'super capacitors' or whatever turns out to be completely unfeasible.

>power usage is the same today as it was before the information age

I sincerely fucking doubt that, literally everything is 2-3 times more efficient these days and almost noone is consuming as much power these days as a fridge and freezer did in the 60's

all of my computers, mobile devices and appliances cost next to nothing to use today, and I have 4 tower PC's and 3 of them are on almost all the time, usually sucking less than 75w apiece

meanwhile my parents own a 70's freezer that sucks up 2kw on it's own on a 50% duty cycle

heating and cooling is still the most energy inefficient part of living outside of the tropics and even with other devices only taking up a small percentage of that power consumption, my energy prices still lower.

that ship has sailed. people are too frightened of it. i assume they think nuclear plants would be built to Ukrainian standards or some shit.

a lot of good that memory will do if you have no applications to use it with

>Time for the EPA to step and crack down on the lines of code in web software and set limits on data hoarding so all these severs don't consume everything.
give the us.gov time. im sure they'll do something as nutty as that, even though quite a lot of data centers these days are being built to be more self-sufficient and efficient by using alternative sources for energy.

Attached: Annotation 2019-06-23 112458.png (687x456, 45K)

Now we are talking.
Fucking gookmoot thinks the link is spam yet allows shit like OP?
This might work, but it requires unusual materials, although the only requirement is correct layer thickness. Maybe they could adapt it to silicon. The density is going to be at most on SLC level, it won't replace flash. Another vaporware.

>People hating on Quantum Computers

They are the future, just a very distant future

reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/

It's a joke, autists.

DRAM won't be in any danger until this is actually commercially available and affordable to build in quantity, and that's assuming it doesn't push itself right out of its own market like rambus did with ridiculous licensing.

RAM is probably still going to be the choice of all privacy autists.

if you read the article it explains how theyre usin quantum tunneling to access the "universe's ram" which is shared by all particles

that obviousky has privacy concerns but with proper encryption it wouldnt be worse than the blockvhain

While I agree that copyright is way to long, patents last for 20 years, which isn't much longer than their historical length. The original patent act gave them 14 years, and the 1861 act set them at 17 years. Patent length was bumped to 20 years in 1994.

things move faster now than they did in 1861, patents should last like 5 years.

Based and publicdomainpilled. Even nationalisation and communism is better than greedy patent hogging.

>put a fist in the center of gif
>telling us to punch our screen and something happens

no adversarial inputs

While Ol'Musky has companies that make interesting stuff, they are mostly taking ideas that were poorly implemented in the past, and making actual good versions. He was the first person with money to realize that the improvements in batteries driven by the laptop & cellphone market would let you build electric cars that weren't just shitty compliance vehicles. Likewise, he figured out that reusable rockets had been technically possible for decades, and were being held back by governmental bureaucratic nonsense & congressional meddling. (See shuttle or VentureStar) His biggest 'innovation' in rockets was simply introducing more rapid testing & iteration, rather than endless studies that don't do anything.

I will say that Starship is doing some interesting stuff. The Raptor engines are full flow combustion, burning methane, which nobody has really done before. And the stainless steel body that will 'sweat' liquid methane in the hotspots for cooling is also pretty novel.

Attached: 11304618-6835247-image-a-5_1553230479559.jpg (634x423, 66K)

Still too long. By the time patents like h.264 expire, the codec will have been deprecated and the damage it caused to video acceleration hardware would have been too entrenched to fix. Patents are almost exclusively why hardware is nonfree shitware.

yes, software technology moves so fast it should only be protected for a fraction of the time that other patents are protected.

>Today they basically never expire
Ciutation needed.

t.Patent attorney.

Patent/copyright expiration should be a function of field innovation speed.
In computers the rate is very fast. It should expire quickly.
In other fields it may be a different story.

Hard to regulate though. But this is probably why people say they last too long.

YES! Ban sepples, Javascript and python. Finally there would be some sanity.

That will kill off a lot of research and development. I spent a few years as a post doc and pay and conditions were dire, funding was seriously bad. Only the prospect of a reward of some sorts prevents research from being seen as a massive drag on the economy.

So quite quickly under a plan like that most research in fast moving fields will end. That includes medicine, electronics, mobile communications, alternative energy to name just a few.

You've mentioned nothing specific again the plan. This is just a way of saying that you want patent protection to be longer.
Under my system it could be. Depends on what's measured as a baseline.

He means to say companies will refile those patents with little to no modification when the time expires. Basically never ending loop. Most MNCs these days have legal teams who do this shit.

Research and development is already killed off, so that's not a problem.

>I have recently watched chernobyl on HBO
>And let me tell you, it was a very frightening experience indeed
>Their ratings speak for themselves
>as of now, I am terminating all nuclear projects in the US until I forget about the show effect immediately

Attached: images.jpg (636x482, 29K)

Another way they do it is that when someone patents something that in some conceivable way cuts into the profits of the big monopolies today, they just buy the patent and sit on it. That is, they don't grant licenses to use it to anyone. This kills off the innovation vector around the patent very efficiently. It's not illegal, but it's sort of a loophole that goes against the spirit of how patents were supposed to work. Patents was meant to be a way to ensure that inventors got compensated for their work, not a way to kill off competition and stop progress.

I did; read again. Anything relating to computers are fast moving fields. Research is expensive and we are feeling the thin edge of diminishing returns as 7 nm geometries and larger sized wafers etc. seem more expensive than is worth the effort. And that we have seen many times before but more research has provided the key to progress.

Even good inventions take time for acceptance, and in the case of medicine/pharmaceutics you need marketing permission to even sell the stuff, which can take 5 years easily, while SPC compensates maximum 5 years. The car industry shows that established actors preferred innovative ways of tricking emission measurements rather than, say, electric drive lines.

Also, who should determine what fields are fast moving and how many years the protection should be? I can see a lot of opportunities for massive abuse. In my case several of my inventions have been hidden and protected by trade secrets, nobody outside can even guess how we can produce what we do and get so quickly to market. For us this has worked for 25 years now and nobody has even tried reverse engineering. Endangering the patent system you risk more and more going for trade secrets.

Give me a tl;dr of this thread. Is it true?

when you remove the middle of the image, your brain doesn't have time to track the particles and interpolate their expected motion for you. this happens on the subconscious levels of the human visual system. instead, you just perceive seemingly unconnected and random images dots, as the sizes and positions of the dots of the dots, coupled with the low frame rate, makes things ambiguous.

Attached: 1561269862961.jpg (326x308, 15K)

I read the article and it was so sparse on details that they basically just say they have a replacement for our current ram.
That's it. No way to know if it's feasible in any way.

Thats what im looking for.

Royalties (1% of all sales or some shit) instead of this bullshit that only lets your invention be used by you and stagnates technology.

I am seriously supporting countries like China and Russia where these patent fraud isn't valid as a result innovation is peaking.

>He means to say companies will refile those patents with little to no modification when the time expires.
You can file for anything including pink elephants but you cannot expect it to be granted. A patent application must satisfy the requirements of novelty and inventive step (or non-obviousness in the US) to be granted. Refiling the same patent is just a waste of time.

In the case of big pharma they try new applications with dosage or chirality variations. That leaves the old patent open for use and the new application open for attack by generic medicine companies.

>Another way they do it is that when someone patents something that in some conceivable way cuts into the profits of the big monopolies today, they just buy the patent and sit on it.
Some times they buy the patents, other times they try to kill off the patent proprietor with endless litigation. That doesn't always work, especially if they have a good agent.
>That is, they don't grant licenses to use it to anyone.
Under TRIPS that opens for compulsory licensing. Uncommon in the West it has been done a few times in India where a lot of generics pharma companies are.
>This kills off the innovation vector around the patent very efficiently.
I hear that claimed often but that does not make it true. Watt's patent on steam engine technology was worked around by internal combustion engines, turbines and more. the only ones that lost were those that were just waiting for his patents to expire.

But is here anyone who has the technical knowledge to make a guesstimate on how likely and possible that is?

A trade secret system is much preferable to our current patent and copyright system. At least trade secrets can be reverse engineered. At least the idea is out there and can be a part of an innovative process instead of locked by bullshit.

I found what most likely is the patent application
patents.google.com/patent/WO2016063086A1/en?oq=WO2016063086

Pretty sure they'd need details as well.
Like this. Thanks user.

The US (and UK) have very strong trade secret protections in place. Some of it is close to ridiculous.

>I hear that claimed often but that does not make it true.
It's extremely common. Only the other day I was looking around for a pressure sensitive electronics component of a particular spec for a project. I found exactly what I was looking for, but lo and behold. Bought by amazon, sitting in a vault. All production and development halted years ago. This shit happens all the time.

That's just the worst of both worlds.

>Royalties
You know that is a common way of licensing a patent, right?

Apple patented rounded rectangles and slide to unlock in the US, you only require an ok legal team and money for bribes to get patents going

Those rounded rectangles was a "design patent", what the rest of the world calls a "design". And what the rest of the world calls a "patent" is in the US a "utility patent". It is a mess and causes needless frustration about inventions that are not.

Also the USPTO seems more agreeable to US companies than others. The European Patent Office rejected slide to unlock.

As for bribes I only heard about one story a long, long time ago in a south European Country. I am not so sure bribes are common in patenting.

"existing technology repackaged for numales" you mean

>The original patent act gave them 14 years, and the 1861 act set them at 17 years. Patent length was bumped to 20 years in 1994.
First off that was a US rule. Secondly the 17 years ran from the date of grant. The 20 year rule is more international and runs from the priority date and it can easily take a few years to get an application granted. If it is granted at all, as in Europe where I can find statistics, only 50 percent of all applications are granted, the rest are rejected or abandoned. And about 5 percent of granted patents are opposed.

It is not as smooth sailing as many seem to believe.

Why on earth would Amazon of all companies sit on the rights to a pressure sensitive component??

The difference is if you have monies or not. The patent system is designed to retain the dominance of the big tech monopolies. If you're some poorfag who can't even afford a patent attorney to shill for you like the guy in this thread, they're just going to steal your idea outright and say fuck you.

No idea. Probably competes with some bullshit product they've got going. You have to understand how these people think. They think like... this thing can potentially be used in a product that competes with kindle (or whatever it's called) by chinks. Better just bury it to be safe. These people have near infinite money so they don't give a shit to hedge their bets like that.

But I reiterate, I really have no idea, that's just speculation. They did, though. Do you have any theories?

The patent system is meant to be the little man's means to stand up against the giants.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
And it is noticeable that giants such as Google are not so keen on patent protection and there has been lots of discussions in the profession about their influence over USPTO.

And yes, while Kearns had a lot of success you should get a lot of assistance from your patent attorney. After all, we promote patents as a way to defend your rights so it is our duty to go to war for our clients when they are attacked. We look into the field for conflicts and if we expect trouble we advice getting IPR insurance. If that is not possible there are other ways we can finance a war against the aggressor.