youngindia Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 It is a good read how he played a significant role in WWII - by deciphering German crypted messages, w/o which WWII could have gone some other way. This is one of the most enduring and fascinating stories of WW2. The work at Bletchley Park to breaking the code enciphered by the enigma machines adopted by the Germans. Turing masterminded the effort but not with significant help from many others including germans who were careless in losing crew books on their submarine when they were sunk or captured. As for any claim the war could have gone the other way, despite the tall claims by the british, militarily US and USSR were crucial to defeating Germany. i am not convinced how the tide on the eastern front could be reversed even if the messages had not been intercepted.
Holysmoke Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Akki, Ganesh, thanks for your responses. So basically if I am understanding this right, the density of markings (switches?) on a material decides the amount of data that can be stored on that material. Therefore it follows that the more precise the switches(?) are the more data can be stored in a unit size of the material. And the main difference in technology that has enabled increasingly greater amounts of data to be stored in the same unit size of material is precision engineering (of course add to it new materials)? One more question - these switches are all electrical as in electricity based switches or can they be of any other type like say light or sound energy switches? Read up on semiconductors. MOSFETs, etc Read up on 45 nm processes vs 32 nm processes to understand why we have more transistors in a fixed area. (high k, metal gate for 45 nm, etc). Transistor gate length is the factor here.. technology is allowing us to make transistors smaller and smaller. We are going to be moving to 16 or maybe even 11 nm processes in the next few years before quantum tunnelling becomes an issue. Context - Thickness of cell membrane = 6-10 nm 10nm = approx 40 atoms. I dont know how to make this easier. :nervous:
youngindia Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Read up on semiconductors. MOSFETs, etc We are going to be moving to 16 or maybe even 11 nm processes in the next few years before quantum tunnelling becomes an issue. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20059431-64.html
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Thanks again Akki, Holy, and Youngindia!
Holysmoke Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20059431-64.html Feck, I completely forgot about that!
akshayxyz Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 let me be devil's advocate. For all his brilliance, Dennis could not achieve even 1% of what Steve Jobs did. I am tired of the comparison, Steve was business man - sought money and public attention, and got it, better/more than most..and Dennis was best at what he sought/did better/most than most. Why can't we just sit back and appreciate both individually, w/o drawing needless apples/oranges comparison.
urbestfriend Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 let me be devil's advocate. For all his brilliance, Dennis could not achieve even 1% of what Steve Jobs did. I am tired of the comparison, Steve was business man - sought money and public attention, and got it, better/more than most..and Dennis was best at what he sought/did better/most than most. Why can't we just sit back and appreciate both individually, w/o drawing needless apples/oranges comparison. :winky: How on earth can you say Dennis hasn't achieved 1% of what Steve did? You criteria for success is money or fame , I agree with you otherwise I'd say Dennis Ritchie has done more than what Steve jobs could do.
lonestarranger Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 let me be devil's advocate. For all his brilliance, Dennis could not achieve even 1% of what Steve Jobs did. Wait, what? Why can't we just sit back and appreciate both individually' date=' w/o drawing needless apples/oranges comparison.[/quote'] Pun intended? :--D
Recommended Posts