New answers tagged

1

As others have mentioned, there's really no limit to parallelizing the control of a large screen, so there's not really an upper limit on screen size. But just for fun, here's a dead-simple way to achieve a very large screen: collect all of the Kindle readers ever produced by Amazon (perhaps ~50 million), and mount them in a grid. Load them all with slices ...


3

As big as you want A kindle takes very little power, and we routinely pack supercomputers into areas with very high power density. Realistically speaking, we can probably manage to deliver enough power to run a moderately large e-ink display and a Raspberry PI to drive it for an array of unlimited size. (Logic behind this guess: We can turn on all the ...


4

As AlexP pust in his comments, this question makes no sense. And from the assumptions, I imagine you probably never used a Kindle. The coolest thing about E-ink technology is how it takes no power to keep the screen as is. Once you update a pixel, it stays that way until you update it again. Also notice that this technology is aimed at keeping a page as it ...


6

Ever seen a video wall? Multiple screens, mounted together as closely as possible and treated as a single display? There's no reason multiple e-ink panels identical to the one in a Paper White couldn't be mounted that way. Then it's just a matter of control. An individual computer can control multiple display adapters, and each display adapter can manage ...


2

Yes, they will have unique skills and even knowledge. Now, with that said... Transcended people may reach standards faster than us. And in time they may reach a very similar mindset and even similar skills. But their individual base will always be there, otherwise they aren't different individuals any more, and just components of a bigger single entity. I ...


6

Let's break this down. 1. Knowledge != Skill You can know everything there is to know about painting, and still be a bad painter. In fact, most critics of any field fall into this category. You can know something very well without being able to actually do it. Sure, your society is in the far future and we've collectively learnt a lot, but that doesn't ...


3

Looks like you posited universal sharing of information - does that have to be the case? Even with tremendous computation powers, raw knowledge is still valuable (maybe even more so), so if there are still independent agents with free will, they may choose to control and protect their knowledge for their advantage. This leads to a question - why cannot ...


1

We already have this! A primitive human could benefit from a canine's keen senses and biological weaponry. The dog can anticipate some threats, deal with some itself, and in other circumstances buy the human some time for a different and more robust response. That is why our species domesticated dogs. Or the dogs would probably turn that on its head and ...


1

Would using neurons to transmit and translate information between the processor and the transmitter/receiver get rid of the risk of a virus getting through? Yes. What you're describing is a technique already implemented without using biological neurons attached networks called "sandboxing". You can create isolated contexts that are only allowed access to ...


9

It is not true that human brain "has never been hacked". Humans have been made to behave against their true intentions, do the things that actually would never be doing on their own - just by being cheated, seduced, misinformed, provoked and the like. Well known examples outside the scope of the "human brain" are impressive: a virus turns all the complex ...


1

Memory would actually be vastly improved by biological interfacing. According to a May 2010 Scientific America article, the human brain is capable of memory storage of 2.5 petrabytes of information (or 2.5 million gigabits... most commercially available computers have a single or double digit gigabit storage). To give you an idea of how much digital ...


0

Also can using biological components provide some other advantage to a computer, like flexibility or better pattern recognition? Or would it be too much of a nuisance to be any help? Human brains are biological computers that are superior to silicon ones at many functions (yet infirior at many others). One could argue that it would make sense to develop a ...


1

Would a computer using biological components as an interface be any good? Also can using biological components provide some other advantage to a computer, like flexibility or better pattern recognition? The Terminator movie series gives a tangible example of where biological components (i.e., living skin) could be utilized, albeit not for the ...


7

No The problem with creating a "unhackable" system is that it would solve the Halting Problem. The problem asks if it is possible to build a system which takes some source code as input and outputs whether that code will stop eventually or if it will run forever. It was proven that such a system would be impossible to build. We can reconfigure the halting ...


2

No. The best protection is air-gapping; don't allow untrusted information into the system in the first place. The next best protection is to thoroughly vet incoming information. This may take the form of requiring incoming information to conform to a very specific format that minimizes the potential attack space. (It's a pity Roland Hughes, AFAIK, isn't ...


0

No. The network is there to send and receive information. This information has to be translated through programs to make them useful for you. So if you download a game first a program (like the newest Wyndowz) has to translate it and make it into its own program to run. If a biological system first processes it... what remains of the program? Unless the ...


Top 50 recent answers are included