Using photonics for real-time processing.

"JackShephard" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

In that case, would you please ask one of your toenail clippings to start posting here in your place? I'm sure they would provide far more mature and worthwhile contributions than you've been able to provide to date.

Bob M.

"JackShephard" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

The word is "you're," a contraction of "you are."

As in, "you're welcome."

Bob M.

I certainly have the impression that large parts of him are, yes.

Most of those would be above the neck.

Bob M.

"JackShephard" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Oh, not at all, Jack, old man. For one thing, I could respect shit.

Bob M.

He can't even figure out that all my kill files have been updated, so he keeps mouthing off to the bit bucket.

You're right. At least 'shit' has a reason to exist.

So, you are saying, like Terrell, that EE Times is lame, and that JPL is lame, and that this holographic memory array is "vaporware?

I'd say that every one of you, except for myself and the OP, have made ZERO "worthwhile contributions to this thread.

So what does that make you stupid bastards? or...

So what does that make you?... stupid bastards?

I am fully aware of that, just like I am fully aware of what can be found in EE Times, and that it is a very good publication.

I don't need a primer from an idiot that spent several posts deriding the author of a thread, and one of the respondents thereto.

It was a "heated, fast response mistake". Better known as a typo.

So f*ck you, and your little grammar, spelling, and usage dog too.

In your case, that would be referred to as "self respect".

On May 27, 8:35 pm, Sjouke Burry [....]

Trolling was around long before Radium. His ideas may be a waste of time but he doesn't seem to be causing trouble on purpose. He also doesn't interject into others peoples conversions. I have yet to see him attempt to insult anyone.

"JackShephard" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Again, I am in awe of the maturity and vocabulary skills consistently displayed in your posts. Normally, in order to see writing of such caliber, one must peruse the walls of the men's room at the local bus station.

Bob M.

"JackShephard" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

What dazzling powers of inference! For your next trick, will you show us the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, demonstrate the conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination and the 9/11 attacks, and prove creationism, all in the space of a single sentence?

The entire world waits with bated breath...

Bob M.

Notice that the only people I "insulted" were those that insulted him, and that was damned near everyone that responded to him.

Oh, and this is USENET. There are no "other people's conversations".

Nice try though, and thanks for not being yet another idiot on the "lets beat up Radium" bandwagon, even though you do appear to be running along side the "lets call Jack a troll" bandwagon.

When/if chips go photonic, I fully expect the makers to cram as much in as they can and not have the part melt. Faster chips gain the maker more dollars per acre than slower ones. As a result, they will always push the speed up to the limit of their technology.

The big thing that using light gains will be speed. Even there, the speeds people are getting over copper interconnects is increasing with time.

Why ever would you want 400nM? I'd suggest 780nM. Take a look at: socrates.berkeley.edu/~budker/papers/pdfs/hole_burning_pdftex.pdf

Notice how using light right near the D2 line allows you to do things that cause Lasers to interact.

Do you think chips will be made of photonic circuits -- instead of electric -- in the next 20 years?

Shorter wavelengths usually allow more bandwidth. AFAIK, 400 nm is the shortest wavelength in which you are safe from ionizing radiation. At wavelengths shorter than 400 nm, your risk of cancer increases.

Conventional CDs use red lasers. Blu-ray uses 405 nm.

If you mean a purely optical system, as opposed to having just pieces here and there rely on some optical phenomenon (e.g., the "holographic" memory which has been mentioned here) - no, there is no likelihood of that at all. The reasons have already been given here, at great length.

Shorter wavelengths in general permit signals of greater bandwidth, but the available bandwidth of even infrared light (longer than 780 nm or so) is so huge already that this isn't the issue. The reason that Blu-Ray or HD-DVD use blue lasers is not because of the bandwidth capability implied by the shorter wavelength, but because it permits smaller physical structures in the disc to be used for storage (and hence increases the capacity of the disc per unit area over their "red-laser" cousins). In other words, "red" light could easily carry information at the rate necessary for a Blu-Ray disc; it just can't "see" the disc properly to read it.

Bob M.

There are already segments of optical network links that are all optical.

No shit? Who wudda ever thunk that optical networks would be optical. Dimmy, you're the dumbest.

Now I'm a little worried - does telling him, "build one and show us how it's done - so far, everyone thinks it's impossible" constitute picking on him?

Thanks, Rich