Forget 3D, Purdue Scientists Have a 4D Transistor

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]army_ant7[/nom]Wait a moment. Have you thought why these materials aren't "cost efficient" in the first place? I have doubts Capitalism is solely if at all, to blame. My friend, ever heard of supply and demand? (Just tell me if you want me to explain further.)[/citation]

Oh I'm aware of supply/demand, but that also depends on what the market offers in the first place - people are downright uneducated these days on what technology can do, the kinds of materials could be used, etc.
Money has nothing to do with our technological/resource ability to produce superior synthetic materials in abundance. It only serves to artificially constrict access to those materials for the purpose of profiteering from existing and 'cost efficient' materials - because if we were actually creating the best of what is technologically possible, without planned obsolescence, profits would plummet.
Cost efficiency = technical inefficiency.

As I said, I don't care about what is 'profitable'... Capitalism as such doesn't give us the BEST of what is technologically possible in a sustainable capacity, because the whole monetary system is unsustainable, promotes cyclical consumption that stems from planned obsolescence, recycling little to nothing and creating enormous waste in the process - all of which is profitable.
The whole profit based system is based on scarcity - today, we live in an artificially induced scarcity.
Its idiotic.
 
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]if u see Intel 3D transistor problem with ivy bridge heat issue, u'll know that even these kind of problem is start to be tricky to Intel. I hope they iron out the issues @ broadwell. So it is unlikely I would take the risk to buy a new product under this new design b4 the mature, especially we are going beyond silicon limit 10nm[/citation]
Yeah, but the difference is that Ga (gallium) can be switched MUCH faster than silicon at the same heat level.
 
[citation][nom]deksman[/nom]Oh I'm aware of supply/demand, but that also depends on what the market offers in the first place - people are downright uneducated these days on what technology can do, the kinds of materials could be used, etc.Money has nothing to do with our technological/resource ability to produce superior synthetic materials in abundance. It only serves to artificially constrict access to those materials for the purpose of profiteering from existing and 'cost efficient' materials - because if we were actually creating the best of what is technologically possible, without planned obsolescence, profits would plummet. Cost efficiency = technical inefficiency.As I said, I don't care about what is 'profitable'... Capitalism as such doesn't give us the BEST of what is technologically possible in a sustainable capacity, because the whole monetary system is unsustainable, promotes cyclical consumption that stems from planned obsolescence, recycling little to nothing and creating enormous waste in the process - all of which is profitable.The whole profit based system is based on scarcity - today, we live in an artificially induced scarcity.Its idiotic.[/citation]

The problem is not Capitalism. The issue is that the cost of our choices is not being applied. Take TVs’ as an example. We will shortly come up against an issue where we are quickly running out of the rare earth metals that are used to make not only TVs, but other electronics. Now, say we suppress the cost of TVs because people want the best tech. Well, that means that the cost will be shifted to something else, but cost does not just mean money. So, now we make all of these TVs and opps, we ran out and don’t have enough to make the machines in the hospital. The cost here is opportunity to save lives with medical technology.
Saying that we need to use the “Best” of something is subjective. So, if we all had the “Best” car, what would it be? Capitalism has so far been the best way of the people making their wishes known. This does not mean it is perfect. The interest of a few can limit our options and or lobby for benefits that only help the few. Capitalism, Socialism ect. will all have this problem.
So to blame capitalism is short sighted and unfair.
 
[citation][nom]deksman[/nom]Synthetic diamonds could have been used for the very same purpose since 1996.Graphene since late 2008.And those 2 materials would be far better for this purpose.Synthetic diamonds also could have been used for production of displays in 1996.Oh but wait... nevermind the premise that we can create these superior synthetic materials in abundance... the 'market' works by using 'cheap' and 'cost efficient' materials (not what is technologically more efficient/better) and then they release the least efficient product first, followed by revisions in the upcoming years for the purpose of profits.I detest Capitalism... it doesn't promote innovation or gives us the best of what technology is capable of (in a sustainable capacity).[/citation]
I detest stupidity, no matter their political viewpoints.
Yes, true diamond CPUs would be 'better' in that they would be able to have less resistance/heat, smaller structures, and way less power usage and leakage. However, we would also have $1000 Celerons on the market, and only 1% of the people who want one would even have the opportunity to purchase one. Sure, yealds and prices would improve over time, but between now and then every business would simply go out of business.
In other words, it is not some Capitalistic conspirasy to keep us off of what is 'better', it is that what is 'better' is not yet feesable. If some communistic dictator decided that we needed to move to diamond CPUs then we would simply not have CPUs.

Anywho, once we learn how to do things at smaller sizes (down to 6-8nm) and we figure out how to get around the odd problems that brings (ie. electromagnetic interference gets pretty intense when talking about things that small and at such low voltage), and we are using so little actual material per chip, then we can talk about moving to a different medium... and it still will not be diamond.

The reason communism does not work well is not because the system itself it all-together bad or evil; It is because people want stuff, and government is not good at making, or distributing, stuff. Once we have cheap/free power, which will lead to truly cheap/free materials and an extreme push towards automation, which will lead to extremely cheap or free products. Once we hit that point where entry level living costs (namely power and food) are negligible, and consumer goods become extremely cheap/easy to produce, and there are a lack of jobs available due to the takeover of automation, then we can talk about a different economic or social system like socialism or communism because people's needs (and even greed) will be able to be met with little strain on the rest of the system.
But until then, people need jobs, and stuff needs to be bought and sold at reasonable prices in abundance, and we cannot do that with synthetic materials yet... but it is a matter of time.
 
Part of what makes GaAs and InGaAs expensive is the manufacturing process. The technology has always afforded faster switching times than Si-based devices. What these guys did, as vitreushumor pointed out, is construct more than one source-gate-drain intersection in a given vertical space to allow for higher current flow and lower S-D resistance. That's what's new. And it probably isn't possible with Si. The reason is that with Si, it isn't possible to construct a second "substrate" for the Source and Drain on top of an existing structure, using existing photolithographic deposition and crystal-growth technologies. Perhaps with InGaAs it is possible to do that and hence possible to create the structure these guys made. It's interesting, but not earth-shaking. The reason it's a Christmas tree shape is that each layer needed a flat surfact to build on, but the edges of a given layer would slope downward and outward. So the bottom of layer two need to be small enough to fit on the top of layer one.

I'm more impressed that they were able to construct things at 20 nm in a lab. Consider that Global Foundries can do that too, but not yet in production. And Purdue didn't just build a brand-new $5B fab plant.
 
[citation][nom]photonboy[/nom]PROBLEM:When you increase the DENSITY of transistors you always run into heat dissipation problems. This sounds essentially no different from simply stacking chips.I remember for stacking chips they said "oh, we transfer the heat out the SIDE to solve that problem. Uh, really? Heat dissipation requires SQUARE AREA.PC GAMERS realized this issue with the new Intel CPU's (eg. i5-3570K). It could not achieve the same high-end frequency (i.e. 5GHz) as its predecessor. (This caused much confusion, as people said it "sucked" when in fact it used less power and offered more performance at the same frequency).I'm all for advances in technology but they have to pass the basic tests:- heat dissipation- manufacturing costs[/citation]
The problem with the new i5K is that Intel used cheap paste inside the package. If you are brave enough to rip it off and put in some quality paste then it will OC very similarly to an SB. Besides, very few of the Sandy bridge CPUs could get much past 4.5GHz anyways, what you are talking about is only for the most extreme of competitive overclockers. Actuial 'gamers' are fine at stock CPU settings as even the most CPU bound games rarely hit loads of 50% on the CPU because games are GPU bound (or as I am finding, they are GPU memory bound).

As for stacked CPUs, they are coming up with some other ideas on that. The real issue with stacked processors and heat is not entirely heat disapation (though that is a big one). The issues is largely one of alignment in manufacturing, and then wear and tear due to different levels of the chip expanding and contracting at different rates, causing warping between levels and then breaking the CPU.

To get past this, there is an idea of making 'stacked' chips in more of a cube fashion. Rather than layering 2 sheets of material on top of each other like a sandwich, think of the CPU becoming more like a motherboard with a backplane, and 'fins' coming off of it. The backplane holds the cache and other shared resources, and then the 'fins' contain the CPU and GPU cores. If Intel has their way the backplane will also house things like the chipsets for the NB, SB, and feature sets like the audio and network processors.

Anywho, the fins would have less points of contact to worry about messing up, and you cram a bit of copper or gold between them for initial heat dissipation, and then you have 5 sides of heat dissipation to work with instead of 1. Say 2 cores per 'fin' and you could have an 8 core CPU with iGPU that looks something like this:
____
|||||


The reason we will never ever see this design in the real world? z-height:
Having a little 10mm cube in a desktop is fine. But having something like this in a portable device is unacceptable because you need heat dissipation material on all 5 sides of the cube, which simply takes way too much space to make an ultra then cell phone or tablet. z-height is such an issue right now that Intel is considering moving away from the BGA package they use on current gen mobile products, and moving to something where the pins/leads come in from the sides of the CPU instead because even the BGA package is too 'thick' for future mobile electronics designs. On in other words, of single layer chips are 'too thick' then there is no way we are going to see stacked chips in the near future.

Still, I would love to see the cube design in the desktop space. If nothing else, they should consider the traditional 'layered' approach but with pins on the edges, and heat spreaders on both of the long sides. Surely that would be possible (though no doubt a pain to design), and could have some interesting applications.
 
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]For a second there, I thought this new transistor goes 88mp/h[/citation]

And it runs on 1.22 nano-giga volts
 
[citation][nom]godnodog[/nom]4d is clearly for marketing, as 4D objects can´t be created (at least by current technology), IF I am not misstaken.[/citation]


You're right and it isn't 4D. Horrible marketing especially coming from a professor from a university that should know better.
 
As for 4 direction transistors cool but darn! I was hoping to see objects stand still at the event horizon through tinted dodecahedron glasses looking at a hypercube display.
 
deksman,

I have to agree with you as well. Capitalism has been the crutch of our technology. I know we're capable of moving forward so much faster if companies would invest more in R&D. I feel that companies won't spend a dollar unless they make two for every dollar spent thanks to the benefit of capitalism. As you mentioned the little knowledge a majority of our consumers have is always misled by cleaver advertising, such as "4D."
 
[citation][nom]deksman[/nom]Capitalism as such doesn't give us the BEST of what is technologically possible in a sustainable capacity, because the whole monetary system is unsustainable, promotes cyclical consumption that stems from planned obsolescence, recycling little to nothing and creating enormous waste in the process - all of which is profitable.The whole profit based system is based on scarcity - today, we live in an artificially induced scarcity.Its idiotic.[/citation]
Perhaps you do not have a firm grasp on capitalism? The idea is to take something (product or service) and 'capitalize' it into something else of value (be it money, goods, or favors). Money was invented around the idea of easier capitalistic trade as a way to evaluate equivalent value.

In other words;
I spent x number of hours preparing food for the day, while you spent x number of hours splitting logs. We both gain a specialist advantage because niter of us needs to invest in the skills or tools required for each-others professions. The introduction of currency into the system simply helps us better evaluate the 'worth' of our respective goods without having to lug hundreds of pounds of logs around, or having to worry about perishable goods perishing. that is the foundation of capitalism, and there is nothing 'unsustainable' or 'bad' about it. with no major technological advantages, and a relatively stable money supply then there is no real worry about inflation or people taking advantage of one another, it is nice and simple

Then we throw technology into the mix. A new log cutter comes into town, and develops a tool to split logs for him. It starts out as an axe, but it continues to evolve and gain moroe and more advantage over your business model of a guy in the woods with a saw. It takes him a whole lot less effort to produce logs than you, and so he values each individual log less, and is willing to trade his logs for less money/goods/favors than you. This causes you to have to innovate to push out more and more logs for less and less money. These are the dark days of capitalism. each side must constantly push the envelope in order to keep doing what they do. Eventually you employ others to your team to share the load and you find that you need to push the envelope not for the sake of yourself and your love of cutting logs, but because you are responsible for keeping the company in business to provide jobs for the people under you. a low paying job is better than no job, and you end up becoming the Foxconn of the logging industry.
Are you evil? No, you were just trying to provide logs and make a living, and even help provide a living for those under you. Do your log-cutting practices cause pain for your workers? Absolutely, because it is a crappy job that does not pay very well. Can you change your practices? Nope. If you slow down then you go out of business which is bad for you, bad for your customers who rely on you, and devastating to your employees who would all rather have a job rather than not have a job.
Then enters socialism; The belief that the social good outweighs the company good. Unions are formed across the board, and the government regulates pay and hours so that your employees have a better standard of living. Business owners generally are relieved (though annoyed) at this because it slows down the pace of competition, and because nobody (or at least very few people) are so heartless that they do not want their employees to have a decent life. But then the regulations start to get out of hand. Union workers want as good of a lifestyle as their provider (and in fact most business owners have a lower standard of living than their employees), and you begin to wonder why on earth you got into the log business anyways.
And so then you invest in technology again. This time, instead of an assembly line where you have thousands of workers you streamline your operation. You open up several smaller businesses each one focused on a different task, and each one with a focus on how to do as much as possible with as small a team as possible. Unemployment begins to be a problem because you simply do not need as many people, but production continues to rise, and prices continue to drop. taxes begin to rise to help support those who are out of a job, but it is better to have the overhead of taxation spread across all industries but being able to hire the best of the best to stay productive, rather than having to hire people who honestly were not that great at their job and were a liability to your company.

Then comes where we are now. The government figures out that people like free stuff, and start providing things that are extremely expensive (like healthcare), and stuff that use to be considered luxury items. Taxes continue to rise, putting a squeeze on already thin margins, and you realize that you are no longer working for yourself. You are working to provide a standard of living for those that you never wanted to hire in the first place. So we come to all of the odd problems we are having right now. Businesses (and people in general) want to work to protect themselves and those who they are close to, not society at large, and so they begin to fight back with PACs and special interest groups as a way to preserve themselves, and keep up their own motives to keep things moving. The government, who use to step in from time to time to make sure people were playing fair, now has a say in almost every part of your business that you created, and then takes 1/4 or more of what you make to distribute to society at large (be it in education, healthcare, housing, food, or other benefits). The politicians realize they can keep their jobs by promising more stuff to the people, and more and more people see the government provided life as being 'good enough' for their standard of living.

And then (near future) comes automation and cheap power. Technology gets to a point where it requires relatively little power to run, cheap energy generation (like solar) begins to have an affordable entry investment with cheap predictable maintenance, and so you start automating everything you can. Eventually it is you and a team of 10-20 people putting out the log needs of entire states and countries. You are supported by several industries of programmers, heavy industrial providers, repair companies, and transport companies, but little by little just about everything becomes automated. From the growing of trees, to their care, to cutting them down and processing them, and even to the point where transit becomes automated. Automation becomes more and more reliable, power becomes cheaper and cheaper, and more and more of your income goes to taxes to pay for everyone's life that is now out of work.

Eventually society gives up on the concept of money. Fabrication itself becomes automated, and the emergence of a 3 class system evolves. On the bottom you have people who are self destructive, they are provided care, counseling, and basic necessities with very few freedoms. In the middle you have the non-working middle class where your job is literally to stay healthy, enjoy life, and provide community service for some minimum 10-20 hours a week. For this you are given access to pretty much anything you could want, and freedom to do quite a bit with it, but you never personally own it, and abuse of said property will put you into the self-destructive class. On the top you have the small working class. This will be comprised of some 10% of people who actually want to have a job that they are responsible for, and in exchange they are provided with any whim of things they could possibly want. They gain the ability to hold truly personal property (or at least unlimited or exclusive access to things) and some amount of privacy, and access to specialty consumables that are harder to come by.

This is true communism, and it may be a pipe dream that is truly too good to be true; But it cannot simply be legislated into reality, and I think this is what a lot of progressives do not understand. We live at the stage of socialistic capitalism because that is simply where we are at in reality. It is not an issue of 'communism is better, so we need to institute it right now!' Countries have communism (or at least communistic capitalism), and you know what? They have terrible health care, and significant portions of their population live in huts or overpopulated apartments. Do communist countries like China want their people to all live in huts without proper heat and AC? no. Are their leaders a bunch of evil politicians who somehow get off on oppressing their people? Absolutely not! I have been to China, and the few leaders I met there have a great passion for their country and their fellow man. What they have is simply what can be afforded at this point by that system (and even they are over stretched like most of the rest of the world). If we were to move a country like America to this kind of system there would be an uproar. We have a higher standard of living for our people who are having a terrible time of life than China can afford for their middle class, and people would rather revolt than be told that they have to dramatically decrease their standard of living. Think of it like changing gears in a car; change too soon and the engine stalls, repairs may need to be done, and you have to start over. Except in life the engine stalling means that people loose their jobs or livelihood, the people revolt and have a revolution, millions of people die, and it takes a generation or two to get back to where we were... but hell, you got your processor, and that capitalism system was stupid anyways.

When it all comes down to it: If you want your crystal CPU then shut up, go to school, find like-minded and intelligent friends, and then go build it yourself. The technology to make such synthetic materials cheaply alone will make you and your friends enough money to go live whatever kind of life you want, and to top it all off you will have the CPU that you want without the pain and misery that you are too shortsighted to see.
 
[citation][nom]photonboy[/nom]PROBLEM:When you increase the DENSITY of transistors you always run into heat dissipation problems. This sounds essentially no different from simply stacking chips.I remember for stacking chips they said "oh, we transfer the heat out the SIDE to solve that problem. Uh, really? Heat dissipation requires SQUARE AREA.PC GAMERS realized this issue with the new Intel CPU's (eg. i5-3570K). It could not achieve the same high-end frequency (i.e. 5GHz) as its predecessor. (This caused much confusion, as people said it "sucked" when in fact it used less power and offered more performance at the same frequency).I'm all for advances in technology but they have to pass the basic tests:- heat dissipation- manufacturing costs[/citation]
Ivy Bridge heat problems have nothing to do with the Tri-gate transistors. Do some more research.
 
@deksman: You didn't recently sell a kidney by any chance, did you?

Seriously though: When you look at a public company, with the exception of certain monopolies it is naive to say that they are choosing to hold back the best they have to market. I say "market" and not "offer", because if the cost of something is higher than the price people are willing to pay for it, then the company will rapidly go out of business trying to offer such a loss-generating product. To consider it at the extreme, there are billions of people who would happily buy a year-long supply of delectable, non-perishable food for a penny. But if it costs $36,500 per person to sell that, I've lost $36,499.99 * 7 billion = 255,499,930,000,000.00. Even if all of the countries in the world joined together to contribute that money to my company, that payment simply wouldn't be possible.

From a different perspective, all public companies face enormous pressure to perform. Even monopolies face this pressure. If they are not profitable, the stock price goes down, and the company's ability to raise capital, assume debt, hire employees, attract leadership talent, and keep competitors at bay all decline. So a company like Intel isn't going to keep marketable technology waiting in the wings. They are going to market it now, and try to profit now from that technology as much as they can. That way, they can make better profits now that they can roll into growth, R&D, and dividends to shareholders. And that keeps the stock price up, with all of the accompanying benefits.

I said certain monopolies are exceptions. An example would be service providers such as internet, cable TV, and telephone. As long as the service continues to be provided, and they still control a monopoly, there is zero incentive to spend money researching better technology, and zero incentive to deploy better technology (deployment costs money and reduces bottom line) unless the costs can be directly and quickly passed on to customers in the form of higher prices for better service. When service providers lose control of their monopoly - such as because FIOS becomes available in a location that used to only offer cable TV and/or DSL - then innovation starts annew. This is where the automated log chopper shows up in CaedenV's epic.
 
Most of you are wrong. A dimension is just a fancy word for a variable. The ability to stack layers of silicon would add a new variable because it gives you a new way to expand. It's why time is considered a variable.
 
Some of you defending capitalism ignore its full expression.

Read up on political corruption, lobbying, collusion, etc. Not only do certain industries prevent progress, they smear real breakthrough scientists, publish tobacco research, and more recently, some are using IP lawsuits as a competitive weapon instead of innovating (see Apple).
 
4D? Perhaps the proffesor should reconsider study physics and mathematics again. House even with thousands floors will still be 3D object or perhaps the more D the more Adid*s 😀. Please don't take me wrong but don't use misleading information (it is the same like calling MP3 players with video support MP4 players, altough everyone uses it and likes it it is misleading too since none of those players can play complete "MP4", except Android-capable and similar).
 
Some good and thorough explanations have been given above, but I'll add to them. :)

First of, Capitalism as you claim is pretty much based on profit right? Well, with that in mind, along with the idea of things like diamonds being expensive (I bet even synthetic ones) why don't a lot of people (companies) make synthetic diamonds? This should increase supply and thus move towards satisfying the demand more (and thus provide for lower prices). Maybe because it's not so easy (generally-speaking) at all to make them?

You don't care about what is "profitable, you say? Well, that's just ignorant and selfish thinking, IMHO, sorry to say... Let's put it this way... What will happen if you worked and donated all, and I mean all of your wages to the less fortunate (similar to companies providing a better product at a loss if they don't do what's profitable)? You wouldn't have money for food for one thing (out of many necessities), which pretty much may mean you'd be dead, and thus can't work anymore and thus can't provide for the less fortunate anymore. Companies need to "survive" as well. If not, "dead" company, no more products, possibly dead people.

I believe that Communism or Socialism would work best if every person would not be self-serving and work towards the greater good, but unfortunately, I bet the majority of us don't. You for instance would probably have spent what you did/are for being able have/use a computer. It is hypocritical.
Anyway, a big problem about not being Capitalistic is, in one word, incentive, rather the lack thereof. People don't have to work because they'll be taken care of ideally. So you'll have more people leaching of the working people's taxes. The working people can eventually get overwhelmed by taxes and figure out that it would be more feasible to live off welfare, and then the cycle repeats until...it gets really bad...the state of the country I mean.
The U.S. isn't purely Capitalistic, and proof of the is our welfare system. A lot of people abuse it and thus we're affected by the downsides of Socialism/Communism. Welfare isn't bad though, but the system could be better. I don't think Socialist/Communist countries are purely what they are either, or else, I don't think you'd see Foxconn workers choosing to suffer as they reportedly do. I believe CaedenV pointed out how China just can't sustain those ideals economically, and I think I see why. (I'd have to say that I'm skeptical though about the politicians there not being dirty. Some may just make themselves appear like they really care about the greater good. Sorry, it's just that I'm from the Philippines and you can't help but see how horrible the corruption is there, and thus learn to be more cynical about these things.)

BTW, I believe that the economist Adam Smith has said that money is something that represents a person's efforts/work (or at least what it's worth). CaedenV explained why we use money (coins and banknotes/bills). We use money to show that we worked to make/do something that society needs/wants. Unless you have complete faith in your fellow man, it would awful if anyone could just go around asking for stuff without any proof that they "deserve it. (I think that's part of what a Utopia is, and thus that's why some/most people think it's impossible. In fact, according to Karl Marx I think, Socialism/Communism is an evolution from Capitalism, and after that is Utopianism, but the people have to be ready for those systems for them to work, i.e. think more about the greater good.) Anyway, it isn't a perfect system, as money can be lost and stolen. It can also be unjustly awarded in a way that's caused by any other thing than pure, ideal Capitalism. But I think the benefits far outweigh the downsides.

About scarcity... That sounds like great demand relative to supply. That would also mean, Capitalistic minded people would capitalize on that to make profit. What scarcity are you referring to exactly (that can be resolved by changing from Capitalism)?

Some of you defending capitalism ignore its full expression.

Read up on political corruption, lobbying, collusion, etc. Not only do certain industries prevent progress, they smear real breakthrough scientists, publish tobacco research, and more recently, some are using IP lawsuits as a competitive weapon instead of innovating (see Apple).
Click to expand...
Those are problems indeed, but are you implying that all of them are exclusive to Capitalistic countries? You think countries with Communism (or any other system) can't experience corruption (which pretty much covers all three of the examples you suggested us to read up on)? If you can reply and say "Yes," I'd really be interested in a full explanation as to how any other system can do better. :)
 
army_ant7 12/11/2012 11:14 AM

Hey there,

I would never imply that only capitalism has these problems. I'm just trying to shed some light on the problems with capitalism that its defenders seems to ignore or miss.

I also never implied any other system can do better. As much as I dislike aspects of capitalism, it's the best system we have for now.

Churchill said it best with "Capitalism is surely the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried."
 
army_ant7 12/11/2012 11:14 AM

Hey there,

I would never imply that only capitalism has these problems. I'm just trying to shed some light on the problems with capitalism that its defenders seems to ignore or miss.

I also never implied any other system can do better. As much as I dislike aspects of capitalism, it's the best system we have for now.

Churchill said it best with "Capitalism is surely the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried."
Click to expand...
Alright. :) It seems though that a lot of us do recognize its faults. With all the "Capitalism haters" out there ranting, it might be hard not to.
Sorry as well... It's just that because of the context of the discussion and/or the way you said it, it seemed like you were implying something(s).
 
[citation][nom]godnodog[/nom]4d is clearly for marketing, as 4D objects can´t be created (at least by current technology), IF I am not misstaken.[/citation]Well...if they change with time then it might be feasible...or something that changes shape or volume with current or temperature maybe?
 


With temperature already exists, an example is a thermistor, but I dont thinks its considered 4D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom