Has near constant peace hindered technological development?

Has near constant peace hindered technological development?

Other urls found in this thread:

spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/the-status-of-moores-law-its-complicated
twitter.com/AnonBabble

If there was a row for computer technology this chart would look much different.

The government keeps all the cool shit for themselves. Even GPS is a weak ass watered down version of what the government uses.

Moore's law and dennard scaling law are both finished now. Only koomey's law remains constant. Electronics/computers would only be different in this chart by virtue of having started much later than anything else in the chart.

you suck the dicks shitskin brit

no. All these things are what's known as "mature technologies." There's only so much refinement that can happen to, say, an internal combustion engine powered by gasoline

Mostly achieved by one development, a reduction in transistor size.

>near constant peace
what am I reading rite now

Clinton signed off to let everyone use government owned GPS satellite in the 90s and you whine

Oh, and how many wars have you fought in?

Its rather likely to be none.

Peace between nations that matter.
There cant be a space-race between Achmed and the drone pilot sitting in LA, so those wars dont count.

Well, we "could" refine them with better materials, but it would be putting the cart in front of the horse. The energy saved by these new materials, would be smaller than the energy used in producing them in the first place. So there goes that.

3d scaling with new materials/production techniques after we arrive at sub 7nm processors. Moores law will last another 50 years at least.

>Oh, and how many wars have you fought in?
Is the measure of how peaceful the world is measured solely based on what I've personally done? You could have at least presented a real argument

FinFET and trigate are not even 'smaller', the size now has no bearing on the actual feature size on chip, each step down just represents increased power efficiency now.

Quantum tunneling/leakage puts a hard limit on progress with silicon as tunneling is guaranteed below 7nm. No one yet has a viable alternative for mass production to silicon.

There's a very likely chance that for ~5-10 years there is no advancement in large scale fabrication at all.

Yes, I would argue it is. As a member of the general public, it is unlikely your country has had to exert much effort in fighting a war if you have not been called into one. Even cold wars can lead to conscription, such as with Vietnam.

>Yes, I would argue it is.
u r wrong

>each step down just represents increased power efficiency now.

I call bullshit. Also I said after we arrive at sub 7nm, so yes obviously you just can't keep making it smaller, but you can start building into the 3rd dimension. They already started doing it with memory, processors are to follow.

They could stack cores on top of each other, meaning you do the first core, check the yield, and keep building on top of those that work, until one of the cores fail, so you effectively bin them like that and save a lot of money in mass production, because you don't waste more than one core on bad chips. You could also shrink die size to the size of a single core. The only big problem is heat dissipation, but you can partly solve that with higher power efficiency.

Cooling would be a bitch with cores stacked on top of eachother

>I call bullshit.
>but you can start building into the 3rd dimension.
Ok so you don't have a clue what you are talking about then.
FinFET and trigate are both 3d transistors. They are not smaller.

>They could stack cores on top of each other, meaning you do the first core, check the yield, and keep building on top of those that work, until one of the cores fail, so you effectively bin them like that and save a lot of money in mass production

Literally one of the stupidest things I have ever read on Sup Forums, do you have any idea how fabrication is done? If you can't see why your idea there is completely unviable just from basic laws of probability, you are a fucking idiot. Protip: Just because it has been done on a small scale in a lab does not mean it will ever be economically viable for mass production.

Here's another hint fucko, if it would 'save a lot of money in mass production' it would already be under way. The technology for it has been around for many years and it does not 'save money' at all to fabricate in such a fashion, it is totally economically unviable. Not to mention such a radical change in architecture would have other implications to be solved.

>The only big problem is heat dissipation, but you can partly solve that with higher power efficiency.

And the only way to get big steps in higher power efficiency without going backwards on performance is to continually "shrink" channel size and reduce the voltage used, which we are rapidly approaching the point of not being able to shrink any more.

I notice how you had nothing to say on the actual physics problem of quantum tunneling, gee I wonder why...

Here's an article even a mental midget like you can read and get at least some education before opening your mouth in future. It even gives a brief explanation of why the step down no longer indicates shrinkage or is relevant to any real feature size anymore, which is "bullshit" according to you, but I guess you know better on the subject than the inventor of FinFET himself right? spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/the-status-of-moores-law-its-complicated

Get an education before thinking you know everything about something you have likely read 1 wikipedia page on.