×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Racetrack' Memory Could Replace Hard Drives?

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the sure-why-not dept.

Data Storage 149

Galactic_grub writes "An experimental new type of memory that uses nanosecond pulses of electric current to push magnetic regions along a wire could dramatically boost the capacity, speed and reliability of storage devices. Magnetic domains are moved along a wire by pulses of polarized current, and their location is read by fixed sensors arranged along the wire. Previous experiments have been disappointing, but now researchers have found that super-fast pulses of electricity prevent the domains from being obstructed by imperfections in the crystal."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

149 comments

Sounds like... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19143705)

...they've updated coil memory.

Re:Sounds like... (-1, Offtopic)

dohzer (867770) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143737)

I believe you mean "there've".

This message brought to you by the Grammar S.W.A.T.

Re:Sounds like... (1)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 6 years ago | (#19146481)

Nope I think GP was right.

They've = they have

There've = there have

So they've updated coil memory would read:

they have updated coil memory or

there have updated coil memory

You know I hate people who correct spelling and grammar on /., but even worse are those who get the correction wrong.

Re:Sounds like... (2, Interesting)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143747)

I think you mean core memory [wikipedia.org].

No, core memory... (4, Interesting)

msauve (701917) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143825)

stores 1 bit per "core." The article is about a form of memory which continually cycles multiple bits stored as magnetic regions through a single physical ring. The OP is correct in that this is similar to cycling photons through an optical ring.

Looking back, this is all very similar to shift register memory, one of the earliest forms of solid state memory.

Re:Sounds like... (4, Informative)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143795)

Actually, it's more like Bubble Memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_memory [wikipedia.org]

Re:Sounds like... (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143839)

It sounds more like Delay line memory [wikipedia.org] to me.

Re:Sounds like... (2, Informative)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145237)

Bubble memory was like delay-line memory, but retained the data when the power was off. Not clear from the article whether racetrack can be non-volatile, but it needs that to compete with disk.

Re:Sounds like... (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19147093)

Bubble mammary, holographic mammary, Where the hell's my flying car? Why are we still using these Victorian mechanical storage devices. Feel like I'm stuck in Difference Engine World. Now, if it was Girl Genius World, that would be something.

Re:Sounds like... (1)

kjs3 (601225) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145581)

Bubble memory, rope memory, mercury delay lines, etc., etc. Oh, yeah...new and innovative stuff, pushing bits around a medium...

I've seen it in fibre before... (2, Interesting)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143717)

I remember reading some research a couple of years ago that somethign similar was done using 100km of optical fibre and a router programmed to keep sending the same stuff around the loop, or it could read it/write it as it came around.

In some ways being slower is definitely an advantage, even with 100km at 10Gb/s you don't have much storage when the bits are moving at the speed of light.

Re:I've seen it in fibre before... (5, Informative)

kaszeta (322161) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143829)

I remember reading some research a couple of years ago that somethign similar was done using 100km of optical fibre and a router programmed to keep sending the same stuff around the loop, or it could read it/write it as it came around.

The basic technique is even older than that. Google "Mercury Delay Line" for early examples: they'd make a long thin tube of mercury with transponders at each ender. It was around 5 ft per K, IIRC.

Re:I've seen it in fibre before... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19144343)

Mercury delay lines were the cause of a bizarre
computer architecture. The normal form of instructions
had an "address of next instruction" field.

After getting the program to "work", i.e get the correct
answer, the "optimization" stage consisted of working out how
long each instruction would take, and then positioning the "logically next"
instruction at the location just about to appear out of the delay line.

There was no advantage to inner loops that were faster than the
delay round the mercury loop. Unless you could unroll and fit two
repetitions into one trip round.

Of course, all of this was done by hand.

Plus one addressing (4, Informative)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144559)

Generally known as n + 1 addressing, where n was how many operands had addresses in the instruction. Also used with drum memory, which was in the physical shape of a cylinder ion the one drum machine I used, but was mainly a head per track disk, so no seeking required. Some drums had multiple heads per track for some tracks to reduce latency further.

The optimization was great fun, my favorite part. You could make programs scream if you paid attention.

Re:I've seen it in fibre before... (1)

Sazarac (621648) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144777)

Kind of sounds like the "pipe organ" computer Waterhouse created in Stephenson's Cryptonomicon which used standing pressure waves to store states.

Re:I've seen it in fibre before... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19143927)

if I had a dollar for every time they've said "this new XYZ technology could replace hard drives," I could buy a lot of hard drives

Re:I've seen it in fibre before... (2, Insightful)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143969)

Sounds like an idea for a slashdot poll:

Which is your favorite vapourware "hard disk replacement"? :)

Re:I've seen it in fibre before... (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144697)

Straight from google's built-in calculator:
10 Gbps / c * 100 km = 437.209131 kilobytes

Re:I've seen it in fibre before... (2, Informative)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144831)

Not really...

10Gbps = 1.25GB/s
c = 300,000Km/s (2sf)

Does 100km in 1/3s

1.25GB/s * 1/3 s = 0.416GB

I think your answer is off by a factor of 1000 (or maybe 1024) :)

Re:I've seen it in fibre before... (1)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144889)

Or alternative I could be talking bollocks - always a possbility :)

I suspect its more the case they had 100,000Km of fibre - in fact multiples of - since I distinctly remember them talking about gigs of capacity with latency in 1/10s of a second

And given 15Km of test fiber sits in a box 1m * 50cm* 50cm (I know as we used to have a few where I used to work) I can see if being feasable to have the 100,000km - if it were a big lab with lots contacts in the fiber optics industry

Informative? (1)

2008 (900939) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145113)

"c = 300,000Km/s (2sf)

Does 100km in 1/3s"

Nope, 100km takes 1/3 of a millisecond or 3x10^-4 seconds

Re:Informative? (1)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145173)

I know I was thinking the same thing myself when I saw the moderation - see my reply to my own post :)

Re:I've seen it in fibre before... (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145423)

Speed of light depends on the material. Fiber cable is usually about 1.5, so you will get 50% more storage capacity than light in a vacuum.

Re:I've seen it in fibre before... (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145465)

Meant to say "refractive index is about 1.5". Use the Preview Button!

Goatse! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19143729)

Goatse! [goatse.ch]

Add it to your bookmarks now!

This sounds.... (2, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143751)

...vaguely reminiscent of "Bubble Memory" 25 years ago. And everyone was saying *that* was going to replace hard drives too.

Re:This sounds.... (2, Informative)

MakerPharoah (1102947) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143773)

Yes, reminds me of both bubble and "Twistor" type memories from the 70s (yes this is an actual thing).

Re:This sounds.... (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143921)

it also sounds like mercury delay line memory from the 1940's and used in the earliest computers.

Plus ca change

Bubble memory... (1)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143995)

I had *exactly* the same reaction.

Geez. Every 30 years, or so, everything old is new again. I'm getting tired of this constant repetition in life.

I mean, I was praying *never* to see bell-bottoms ever again, as long as I lived. Shudder.

Bubble poster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19146745)

"Geez. Every 30 years, or so, everything old is new again. I'm getting tired of this constant repetition in life."

Starving for novelty, are we? The basic idea(s) may be the same but technology and science has improved since then. You should be glad people are still trying otherwise you'd still be playing with a slide rule.

Re:Bubble memory... (1)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 6 years ago | (#19146799)

Ironically, I'm wearing a pair of bell-bottom jeans right now.

Thankfully, you can't see them. :)

Anything (3, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143759)

Anything would be better than the current way my hard drive works. Spinning discs on a platter?! A thousand moving parts?! What is this, the Stone Age?!

Re:Anything (4, Insightful)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143857)

Anything would be better than the current way my hard drive works
You mean a technology that is
  • cheap
  • reliable - OK, hard drive errors do exist but I wish my car, for example, was as reliable
  • standardized - OK, there are a number of standards but not that many
Yes, in the long term I don't see the hard drive as the best method of data storage but the altenatives have a long way to go before they replace it.

Hard disks vs Cars (2, Insightful)

giafly (926567) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144415)

ok hard drive errors do exist but I wish my car, for example, was as reliable
If I drove a car that was as as unreliable as my hard drives, I'd be dead. Three crashes in the last 4 years, all contents lost.

Re:Hard disks vs Cars (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144897)

Something tells me that you have either heat, vibration, or power issues.

Either that or you're incredibly unlucky.

Re:Anything (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143869)

Anything would be better than the current way my hard drive works. Spinning discs on a platter?! A thousand moving parts?! What is this, the Stone Age?!


Hey, it works and is for the most part reliable. BTW- why does everyone assume that there won't be a need or desire for mechanical systems in the next century? Mechanical engineering and design is far from passe, and will find applications in new fields like space travel in the future.


-b.

Re:Anything (3, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143957)

Spinning discs on a platter?! A thousand moving parts?! What is this, the Stone Age?!

I know you meant that as a joke, but...

You should take a HDD apart some time. Though manufactured to incredibly small tolerances, they only really have two moving parts - the platters, and the head assembly (which despite having a lot of sub-parts, moves as a single unit).

And aside from them, you don't even have that much else that goes into a HDD - usually two air filters (one for keeping internal air clean, and one that balances external air pressure changes); the body itself (just a big aluminum block with an airtight lid); A magnet assembly for moving the heads; and the electronics on the visible external board. Sometimes you have one more small mechanical bit that doesn't seem to do anything (perhaps it parks the heads for shipping?); And that about covers it.

Re:Anything (2, Informative)

dotfile (536191) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144003)

That extra little mechanical bit is a head lock - keeps them from flopping around while the drive's powered down.

Re:Anything (2, Interesting)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145785)

That reminds me of something I'd almost forgotten; the first Amstrad PC clones (*) that my Dad had at work required you to run a utility to "manually" park the heads on the hard drive before you powered down. Or maybe I'm remembering it wrong.

(*) Amstrad is a British company who (amongst other things) sold the first *really* successful PC clones on the UK market.

Re:Anything (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#19146073)

That reminds me of something I'd almost forgotten; the first Amstrad PC clones (*) that my Dad had at work required you to run a utility to "manually" park the heads on the hard drive before you powered down. Or maybe I'm remembering it wrong.

Every ST-506 interface drive I've ever owned (MFM, RLL, maybe ESDI? I never had any ESDI) required manual parking of the heads. park.com was a required utility back in the DOS days. You only really need to park heads before moving the computer, though.

Re:Anything (2, Interesting)

dargaud (518470) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144693)

I understand the need for air to keep the head flying off the surface of the platter. What I don't understand is the need to have a hole to exchange the air with the outside. Can't they just fill it with neutral gas at the optimum pressure and seal the damn thing ? I say that because I've used hard drive at high altitude and they FAIL often. I mean, if they can do it with salad, why can't they do it to HDs ?

Re:Anything (3, Informative)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145147)

They're not sealed because air pressure is a powerful thing. If you take a laptop with a sealed hd on an airplane, the pressure changes in flight could throw various parts out of true. There'd also be metal fatigue just from normal air-pressure changes due to weather.

In other words, the guys who've been designing hard drives for the past few decades aren't stupid.

Re:Anything (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145671)

I never said they are stupid, I just didn't know the reason. But I'm still surprised that my plastic watch can withstand 4 bars (~30m depth) when a much easier to harden HD cannot... Why should there be metal fatigue on a static enclosure ?!?

Re:Anything (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#19146115)

Your watch isn't a precision instrument, while the drive is. The watch's internal works can sustain more damage before the watch's operation is affected. Plus, nobody stores information, important or otherwise, on a watch.

Re:Anything (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#19146015)

Why can't they just throw a silicone diaphragm in there in place of the filter? It would outlast the device and eliminate the pressurization problem without involving exchange with outside air (which I agree is stupid - but then, the last drive I saw without such a feature was a dead conner drive.)

Re:Anything (1)

suggsjc (726146) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145239)

they only really have two moving parts
I'm not saying that flash memory is the answer, but it has zero moving parts.
The last time I checked two is an infinitely larger number than zero.

So I'm not knocking HDDs as the R&D, and precision engineering involved is noting to scoff at, but I think we can all agree that it isn't the ideal medium for storage.

Re:Anything (1)

ps236 (965675) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145573)

Flash memory is no good because it has a limited number of write cycles (typically about 10,000 - after which it becomes 'random'. If a swap file was on flash memory, it'd soon die..)

RamSan [superssd.com] is an alternative - very fast, no moving parts - as used by the database servers for the Eve Online [eve-online.com] MMORPG.

The only drawback is cost... And they're not totally solid state - if you get a power cut, the batteries last long enough to write the data to internal hard disks. I suppose potentially these hard disks could be replaced by flash memory since it won't be written to that often (compared with a normal PC's hard disk)

For now, hard disks far beat anything else for cost per MB, reliability and data density.

Re:Anything (1)

suggsjc (726146) | more than 6 years ago | (#19146337)

For now, hard disks far beat anything else for cost per MB, reliability and data density.
Agreed, no argument there. However, I thought this whole conversation was about the future of data storage. So again, I'm not saying HDD's are bad/evil/whatever but I just don't think they are going to be around for another 10-20 years as the dominant storage medium.

Re:Anything (3, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 6 years ago | (#19146571)

Flash memory is no good because it has a limited number of write cycles (typically about 10,000 - after which it becomes 'random'. If a swap file was on flash memory, it'd soon die..)


Very low-end flash memory has that kind of write cycles. And it's typically limited to NOR flash, which is used only for code memory and limited data store due it its large cell size (largest NOR flash chips are around 256MB). Even so, Intel's StrataFlash had write lifetimes of at least 100,000 erase-write cycles, and most flash chips are underrated by an order of magnitude.

Modern bulk-dsta storage flash is NAND flash, which due to its smaller cell size (partly due to its design, and partly due to operation), means 16GB (byte, not bits) per chip is starting to become practical. NAND flash is faster erasing and writing than NOR flash, but much slower (order of magnitude) slower at reading. Plus it's I/O based - you can't "boot" from NAND flash like you can from NOR. (Write/Erase/Reads are on the order of microseconds for NAND - typically 100-500uS for write/erase, and 10uS for reads. For NOR, writes are typically 300-1000milliseconds, erases 1000ms, but reads on the order of 100ns or less).

Because of the operational characteristics of NAND flash, it typically has a 100,000 write-erase cycle limit at the minimum, with most offering at least 1,000,000 cycles (and typically lasts an order of magnitude more).

Wear-levelling algorithms and bad-block handling increase the time between writes and erases to the point where it almost isn't a consideration anymore - when the drive dies eventually, it'll really be timeto change it. And at least when an SSD dies, it dies on erases and writes, and very rarely on read. So if you get write errors, you still have a great probability of recovering all the data (except the data which was just written).

It's write-erase cycles, because erasing turns "0" bits into "1" bits. Writing turns "1" bits into "0" bits. Within certain restrictions, you can do multiple writes to a block (turning "1" bits into "0" bits, but you can't turn a "0" bit into a "1" bit without erasing), but those don't count towards write-erase cycles. (This behavior is often exploited when marking blocks as dirty and such). And they only fail on writes or erases due to internal timeouts (each cell takes progressively longer and longer to erase and write). Reads can be considered as never failing.

Re:Anything (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144053)

A thousand moving parts?! What is this, the Stone Age?!
Yes, but when they fail you have some cool magnets to play with!

Re:Anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19144057)

I never understood why they don't keep the disk still and spin the laser instead. This would require mirrors and a bigger housing, I guess, but surely you could spin a tiny mirror faster than a fat disk?

IANA (I Am Not Anything) but are there any serious mechanical or engineering hurdles to overcome in flipping the disk paradigm on its head in this way? Because it seems like such a simple idea that someone must have come up with it before unless a) it's impossible or b) I'm an unsung genius.

And in my case, B = A.

Re:Anything (1)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 6 years ago | (#19146419)

Building a read/write head that spins AND seeks is pretty complex. It's much simpler to have the disk spin in place while the head seeks back and forth.

Goddamn kids (2, Funny)

PixelScuba (686633) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144355)

Bah, in my day, the REAL Stone Age, we had to etch hash marks into a nearby rock to save our data. You damn kids and your fancy, rewritable magnetic storage media.

Re:Anything (3, Funny)

comradeeroid (1048432) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144381)

Anything would be better than the current way my hard drive works. Spinning discs on a platter?! A thousand moving parts?! What is this, the Stone Age?!

Well, actually it's worse than the stone age. Back then we had "Monoliths" which (apart from glacial shift and other geological "features" - or "bugs" as anyone outside sales management called them) had no moving (of movable even) parts at all.

When the storage space on a monolith wasn't enough you could expand to a "Circle".
Still, the space on a full circle even with a connected "Altar" and a full set of "Druids" and "Maidens" peripheals wasn't more than perhaps 256 bytes. So the monolith system was later on replaced by paper which had the benefit of portability but the drawback of reduced lifespan.

Paper was a very popular form of storage, though with some flaws. For example attempts at "burning" information onto papers were done several times in recorded history (for instance back in 1939) but even if it was a fast and effective way to handle the information it was totally destructive to the media and had to be abandoned. Burning then lay dormant as a form of inprinting information on media until the discovery of CD's.

CD's are a hybrid technology combining one not very moving part with several moving parts that moves the unmoving part around. No clever explanation for this behaviour has ever been found and most scientists just doesn't like to talk about it.

Re:Anything (1)

AlecC (512609) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144973)

Almost as bad as the engine of my car. Lumps of metal hurling themselves up and down hundreds of times a second, accelerating and braking over and over again. Tolerances of a hair thickness running at hundreds of degrees and expecting tom be kept oiled without burning the oil. Fires meing lit ans extinguished ijn millisecond. Camshafts? Valves? Timing chains? All expected to keep in exact step? It'll never work, I tell you. And if it does, it will only run for minutes before something in the whole haywire mess breaks.

Victorian age technology (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 6 years ago | (#19146467)

William Gibson had made a remark about computers and the hard drive, and he was fascinated to learn that the hard drives had a moving platter. He then likened them to Victorian age record players.

Racetrack my ass! (-1, Offtopic)

koduck (1096345) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143809)

First you guys saying the fact i am a real man and not a "sissy" caused a "Testosterone Poisoning"... And now

"110 metres per second"
That's super-fast?!? My masculine homeboys rides the Formula One racing much faster than that!!

says Peter Fischer (1)

ChineseDragon (1101707) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143901)

"The question is can we fabricate media that are perfect or control the imperfections,"

Re:says Peter Fischer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19144625)

Yes, but will support be embedded in the latest Kernel?

Potential for fun (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143925)

How racetrack-like are we talking about? Does it smell like spilled booze and horse puckey? Can I gamble away the kids' college money on it?

Re:Potential for fun (1)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144037)

Does it smell like spilled booze and horse puckey?
That's a rather zen-like question: what do the vapours of vapourware smell like if they don't exist?

Can I gamble away the kids' college money on it?
I'm sure there will be an overambitious start-up somewhere looking to leverage this, and bring in some gullible venture capitalists, so in that sense your wish may yet be granted.

there != their (3, Informative)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#19143943)

their location.

I will stop now before I make a simple grammatical error myself.

(yes, I know you're looking, hmm, hmm, must be one here somewhere)

Re:there != their (0, Offtopic)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144149)

Ah, too bad. 'their' is plural, so it'd be 'their locations'. It's okay, though, since the original summary had the same problem. To have 'their location' read, they'd all have to be in exactly the same place... And that'd be pointless in this situation. So 'their locations are read'.

I'm going to completely ignore the lack of a capital letter and period on that last sentence.

I'm terribly annoyed by the constant inability of people to use the correct word, too, but in the end, none of us are perfect. I've started to convert from grammar-nazi to grammar-prejudiced instead. It's quite useful to be able to judge a person's intelligence by the format of their text. Saves me a lot of headaches, I can tell you.

Re:there != their (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19144489)

Grammar nazis usually post because they believe people would like to learn from their mistakes, so as not to look stupid in the future. Who wants to continually make a mistake that should have been corrected by the most basic education? The grammar nazi is a bit of an idealist.

As they become more cynical (or is that 'more experienced'?), they realise that most of these idiots who don't bother to learn English once are not going to bother to try and improve themselves afterward either. In fact, they take a perverse pride in looking like a fool. Thus the grammar nazi 'graduates' to grammar prejudice, dismissing the opinions of fools directly - the very situation their original idealism was trying to help prevent.

Re:there != their (0, Offtopic)

hesiod (111176) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144649)

I believe the "Grammar Prejudiced" are actually the Grammar Nazis to whom you refer (please don't correct me if that's an incorrect usage of "whom"; it's a stupid word). The G.Nazis were once teachers who realized the students didn't want to learn.

The extreme have become so extreme that their former extremism is seen to be perfectly normal. Or at least less @$$hole-ish.

Re:there != their (1)

untaken_name (660789) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145355)

(please don't correct me if that's an incorrect usage of "whom"; it's a stupid word)

Why is it any more stupid than the word 'him' or the word 'her'? Should we just convert to using 'he' and 'she' and 'who' exclusively? Also, no correction necessary. Just use 'whom' when you could rewrite the sentence using 'him' or 'her' and use 'who' when you can rewrite the sentence using 'he' or 'she'. It really isn't that hard.

Re:there != their (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19144841)

Too be really pedantic....

none of us are perfect

should read

none of us is perfect

None is a contraction of "not one" and hence the verb should be singular.

Re:there != their (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19145207)

This has nothing to do with the OP, but on the subject of grammar - I really wish people would use "and I" and "and me" correctly. You simply shouldn't say, "Come to the concert with Bob and I." But it's probably the most grievously violated grammar rule ever.
 
Here's how it works. Take the other people out of the sentence and figure out which word you'd use to refer to yourself. Then put the other people first.
 
  You get:
 
"Come to the concert with me." = "Come to the concert with Bob and me."
 
"I went to the concert." = "Bob and I went to the concert."

bleh

Re:there != their (1)

untaken_name (660789) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145397)

Oh...and the people who use 'myself' when they mean 'me'. That bugs myself to no end.

Re:there != their (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145545)

Oh...and the people who use 'myself' when they mean 'me'. That bugs myself to no end.
You should listen to some classic Smothers Brothers: "My brother and myselves...".

not super-fast (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19144001)

but super-short

Polarity (1)

mrv00t (858087) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144025)

"...Magnetic domains are moved along a wire by pulses of polarized current..."

But with tachyon pulse we could reverse the polarity and ...

Re:Polarity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19145205)

... like blowing too much air into a balloon!

Tiny bubbles. (0, Redundant)

1shooter (185361) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144051)

It reminds me of bubble memory technology from the early 80's. Back then a Multi-bus card had whole 512K of non-volatile memory for an 8086. Later versions got larger but the ever increasing density of eeprom/flash and disk media doomed it.

Hello core memory? (0)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144085)

Magnetic memory went the way of the dodo a good 35 years ago.

Re:Hello core memory? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19146831)

Ever heard of FRAM? Fero Memory has been trying to make a comeback ever since it was surpassed by transistorized memories back in the early 70's! There is a technology that people are trying to role out right now based on ferric properties on Silicon substrates. Same features as core.

The more things change, (2, Informative)

gillbates (106458) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144275)

The more they stay the same.

For those who don't know, delay line memories [wikipedia.org] have been around for at least 50 years...

Kind of interesting that they are using an old concept with new technologies.

Carbon nanotubes? (1)

f00Dave (251755) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144397)

However, there are still problems that need to be overcome before the technique could be used more widely. In particular, small crystal imperfections in the wire impede progress, slowing down some domain walls and stopping others altogether.

Maybe it's obvious, but wouldn't carbon nanotubes be a prime suspect, here?

That's not bubble memory... (2, Interesting)

Yoozer (1055188) | more than 6 years ago | (#19144445)

It's Shigawire! [wikipedia.org]

This will bring us one step closer to the Dune Universe. I call dibs on the first load of Spice!

Re:That's not bubble memory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19147213)

I call dibs on the first load of Spice!
Muad'Dibs?

So that's how Scotty did it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19144631)

I always wondered how he kept himself circulating in the Pattern Buffer for years and years.

fi`rs7! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19144801)

a dead man walking. Bulk of the FrreBSD

Power problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19145513)

And like bubble memory, it is volatile, maybe? Meaning that when the first power failure comes along - there goes your data?

"And at th finish line it's ... Feetlebaum!" - Spike Jones

Tatoos (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 6 years ago | (#19145537)

If you have a million monkeys tatooing a million geeks, you could achieve, ah, roughly 50k letters per second?

Of course, there is the poo factor....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...