Using photonics for real-time processing.

[Mark Zenier]

Yes, I have. A "holographic" memory array is hardly an example
of something that demonstrates the principles required for the
full system that our "friend" Radium seems to be envisioning
here. Or are you under the impression that "memory arrays" perform
"processing"?

Maybe Radium has a library of old "Electronics" magazines from the
1960/70s. There was a multi-part saga of an outfit promising a "Laser"
computer using optical processing with capabilities a magnitude greater
than the state of the art of the time. So someone at Boeing Computer
Services, knowing that it was some sort of stock scam, ordered one to
call their bluff. At which time the "entrepreneur" turned the tables and
announced the order, claiming that Boeing was endorsing his technology.
It, of course, faded away rapidly, but provided much amusement.

Mark Zenier [email protected]
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

 

[JackShepherd]

- are you usually in the habit
of coming in late to threads such as this one, taking them far more
seriously than they could possibly deserve, and spouting such
nonsense (apparently with the primary motivation being the
demostration of your own possession of a copy of an industry
journal)?

**** you. This is Usenet, and not everyone reads every thread at the
same time it is started, or at the same time your stupid ass does.

Just like you don't read every copy of EE Times the same time I do, or
apparently, Radium does.

That is all he does. He reads about a new technology (or old in this
case), and then asked a question about it to see how many of you
"experts" even have a clue about what is going on.

You apparently don't, since it IS being put to use, and they ARE doing
away with as many electrical connections in such links as possible.

 

[JackShepherd]

I ask simply because I want to know whether or not to
killfile you now, or if you intend to actually contribute something of
worth to the group at some point in the future.

**** you, asswipe. Your put downs of the OP show that it is YOU that
needs to be filtered.

 

[JackShepherd]

Good post. I was too lazy to say it, but you said it all, and very well.

Don

1) It was the cover story article.

2) Not everyone reads Usenet articles at the same time, nor at the time
they are started.

3) Yes, you are lazy.

4) and a bit stupid if you think what he wrote was "said very well".

 

[JackShepherd]

Damn, you're thick! You are the first moron that I've ever heard of
who can't see that it was a joke. It was an 'April Fools Day' joke from
Signetics in 1972, and a VERY well known classic. I guess that you've
never learned to read a datasheet because you spend too much time in the
bathroom with the EE Times?

scale one to ten.

The signetics joke class: 10

Your joke class: 1 or less.

Your level of immaturity: above ten.

 

[JackShepherd]

Really? You sure made a fool of yourself with that Signetics data
sheet. Even the kids at the Vocational Electronics I mentored course
got it.

I was talking about you railing Radium on a topic you obviously know
nothing about.

 

[JackShepherd]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:35:08 GMT, in sci.electronics.design "Michael


Is the EE times any good as a replacement for anal cleansing lamina?


martin

Taking your maturity lessons from Terrell, I see.

Bathroom humor and porn lames are his speed, but you as well? Sad.

 

[krw]

Yes.

Then you must also understand that an optical transistor is going to
be a problem.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

scale one to ten.

The signetics joke class: 10

Your joke class: 1 or less.

Your level of immaturity: above ten.

Yawn.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

I was talking about you railing Radium on a topic you obviously know
nothing about.

Ok, jackoff. Tell us who sells this breakthrough optical memory. AT
THE MOMENT IT IS ONLY A LABORATORY CURIOSITY. 20 + years ago Bubble
memory was supposed to be the biggest computing breakthrough ever. When
was the last time you saw a computer with working bubble memory? You're
living in a fantasy land, just like Radium. I suppose you believe all
of his other theories, as well.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

**** you, asswipe. Your put downs of the OP show that it is YOU that
needs to be filtered.

Aren't you due back at the home?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Don Bowey]

1) It was the cover story article.

So what? Not everyone reads EE Times. Your implying that you do read it is
useless and supercilious.

2) Not everyone reads Usenet articles at the same time, nor at the time
they are started.

But the intelligent readers start at the beginning so they can contribute in
context to later posts rather than appear as the egocentric fool you appear
to be.

3) Yes, you are lazy.

Not so lazy that I don't at least scan the EE Times when it arrives. Your
references to it were crap.

4) and a bit stupid if you think what he wrote was "said very well".

I understand why you disagree with us; you are in denial. Your post were
shallow.

 

[JackShepherd]

Ok, jackoff. Tell us who sells this breakthrough optical memory. AT
THE MOMENT IT IS ONLY A LABORATORY CURIOSITY. 20 + years ago Bubble
memory was supposed to be the biggest computing breakthrough ever. When
was the last time you saw a computer with working bubble memory? You're
living in a fantasy land, just like Radium. I suppose you believe all
of his other theories, as well.

It seems that you have been sleeping again. Ever heard of MRAM?

You lose... again.

Not a lab curiosity, chump. Neither is the technology that was
mentioned by the magazine last week.

 

[Don Bowey]

It seems that you have been sleeping again. Ever heard of MRAM?

You lose... again.

Not a lab curiosity, chump. Neither is the technology that was
mentioned by the magazine last week.

MRAM is not optical, jackass.

Try finding something with relevance to the topic.

You lose... Again.

 

[JackShepherd]

MRAM is not optical, jackass.

Try reading, next time, JCKASS. The dolt was talking about magnetic
bubble memory. MRAM is today's modern equivalent.

You are fucking lost.

Try finding something with relevance to the topic.

Try not telling me what to do, JACKASS.

You lose... Again.

No. I was right. You just don't know how to fucking read.

You lose... Again.

 

[Don Bowey]

Try reading, next time, JCKASS. The dolt was talking about magnetic
bubble memory. MRAM is today's modern equivalent.

You are fucking lost.

Try not telling me what to do, JACKASS.


No. I was right. You just don't know how to fucking read.

You lose... Again.

This was the topic topic, since you can't seem to follow it. It was
addressed to you:

"Ok, jackoff. Tell us who sells this breakthrough optical memory."

The bubble memory comment was an aside.

 

[JackShepherd]

This was the topic topic, since you can't seem to follow it. It was
addressed to you:

"Ok, jackoff. Tell us who sells this breakthrough optical memory."

They will be marketing it next year. Do your own research, idiot. I
told you where the article is. Do you have a problem with that?
Do you even know what OC768 is? It will beat that by about 16 times.

The bubble memory comment was an aside.

So was the MRAM response, you dumbfuck.

 

[Don Bowey]

They will be marketing it next year. Do your own research, idiot. I
told you where the article is. Do you have a problem with that?
Do you even know what OC768 is? It will beat that by about 16 times.

As a matter of fact, yes I know what OC768 is. But your mentioning it
doesn't bless you with any detail knowledge of it. Same with your
topic-dropping previous comments.

You have a problem of staying on=topic, and/or of trying to move the topic
as a self-serving CYA move.

IF it is pertinent to the topic of optical memory (THE topic), please tell
us what is the "IT" that will beat the OC768 transmission rate by 16 times.

So was the MRAM response, you dumbfuck.

It was the ONLY thing to which you responded. That pretty much makes it
something other than an aside comment, dumbard.

 

[Bernd Paysan]

Check with your local field theorist before trying this at home.

Nah, that's completely correct - photons in a vacuum basically don't
interact with each others. It's a bit more complicated in QFT, but the
difference is small enough to be neglected. Gravitational forces between
photons are even less.

But: Photons can affect electrons, and vice versa. Within a transparent
material, both happens, so photons get some of the electron properties.
They can even interact with each others. People have found photonic gates
and transistors more than a decade ago. But it's not so easy to build a
complete photonic computer.

 

[JackShepherd]

You have a problem of staying on=topic, and/or of trying to move the topic
as a self-serving CYA move.

Bullshit, idiot. HE mentioned bubble memory, not me, dumbass.

I RESPONDED to his challenge.

YOU are too fucking stupid to grasp that concept.