1–10 of 14 posts
There seems to be a lack of coverage in geek news, despite a healthy academic community/journal etc and I was wondering why.
I've got my own reasons for not being enthused about the current field, but I am curious what other people think.
I, for one, am ridiculously excited by the idea of an entirely new computing paradigm. I know some at HN abhor anything that isn't practical this very second, but I think they just lack imagination. I'd be interested in any articles submitted in the vein of non-traditional computing.
Here are some searches that you could try:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+p...
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+c...
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+c...
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+f...
There is a lot of activity in this area which has been dubbed "physical computing". See e.g. O'Reilly's Make quarterly and Sparkfun, which apparently does > $10 million in sales annually from selling electronics components and kits to hobbyists. I'm eagerly awaiting my first Arduino starter kit from them! ;)
I, for one, am ridiculously excited by the idea of an entirely new computing paradigm. I know some at HN abhor anything that isn't practical this very second, but I think they just lack imagination. I'd be interested in any articles submitted in the vein of non-traditional computing.
I, for one, am ridiculously excited by the idea of an entirely new computing paradigm. I know some at HN abhor anything that isn't practical this very second, but I think they just lack imagination. I'd be interested in any articles submitted in the vein of non-traditional computing.
It would be more exciting if there hadn't been so many in the recent past, like quantum computing that's been going to have a practical application Real Soon Now for the past decade.
Modern day locusts is what they are.
Oh, of course I'm excited and interested (although not enough to follow it so closely as to be able to guess what you're de-enthused about) but I think it's still a recondite enough area that most HN readers won't know to upvote it.
http://www.oldcitypublishing.com/IJUC/IJUC.html
Basically it is too unconventional (chemical), faddy and not focussed on producing something usable by the average geek.
That sort of stuff is still interesting (for computing in odd situations) but is not what I am looking for. I suppose I wondering why there isn't the computer equivalent of a space elevator. That is something most people know about that can't be done with current tech but is physically plausible (but might still might be too hard to do). Something that might spark the equivalent of the spaceward foundation, but for computers.
The fleet architecture represents a different face of unconventional computing. One that geeks can get behind. However it concentrates on speed of processing. Looking at the costs of computing, increasing computational power per watt or flops is useful but does not address the dominant cost of owning and running a computer. The dominant costs, I think, are the costs of learning the system, administering them and programming them. This is not addressed by either of the above threads of research.
I have my own odd-ball ideas. Which I'm excited about. I just wanted to gauge opinion of HN type people.