In article <>,
Chris Angelico  <> wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano
><> wrote:
>> I'm just pointing out that our computational technology uses
>> over a million times more energy than the theoretical minimum, and
>> therefore there is a lot of room for efficiency gains without sacrificing
>> computer power. I never imagined that such viewpoint would turn out to be
>> so controversial.
>The way I understand it, you're citing an extremely theoretical
>minimum, in the same way that one can point out that we're a long way
>from maximum entropy in a flash memory chip, so it ought to be
>possible to pack a lot more data onto a USB stick. The laws of physics
>tend to put boundaries that are ridiculously far from where we
>actually work - I think most roads have speed limits that run a fairly
>long way short of c.

As a physicist I'm well aware that houses need no heating.
With a suitable isolation and top-notch heat-exchangers in the
ventilation system, our bodies generate enough heat to keep our houses
at a comfortable 21 degrees. (Well, and there is the disk washer.)

In the same vain cars need very little fuel, we just must accept that
cars move slightly slower than we could walk.

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar& &=n


Reply via email to