What is Digg?102 Comments
- scalemodlgiant, on 07/02/2008, -0/+157It was just a nightmare, Bender. There's no such thing as 2.
- Zoxive, on 07/03/2008, -0/+720 = off
1 = on
2 = ?? profit? - inactive, on 07/02/2008, -2/+63OMG...2!
- Chirp08, on 07/02/2008, -0/+56why not just put more 1's in?
...but ours goes to 2... - malechite, on 07/02/2008, -1/+40mmm Trinary
- shadearg, on 07/03/2008, -2/+35mmm ***** and Tytes
- AmyVernon, on 07/02/2008, -0/+33so now we'll be able to store all the info in the world on a chip the size of my pinkie?
- superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -1/+29"And this is my prize computer, its memory goes to 2"
"So how is this memory more useful?"
"Well you see, with other computers when you reach 1 you're done. You can't hold any more. With this computer, I can go right on up to 2 and compute that much harder"
"Couldn't you just add more bits to the other computer and hold the same amount?"
*blank stare*
"This computer goes to 2." - megadan76, on 07/02/2008, -0/+27Hmm... first memristors and now this. The future is looking good... we just have to get it all designed and made before we run out of oil(!)
- Todesengelvr6, on 07/02/2008, -0/+26Damnit for the short human lifespan! I'm not gonna get to see any of the really really really cool stuff!
- Rabbethan, on 07/03/2008, -2/+25"There are 2 kinds of people, those who can read binary and those who remember the old joke."
- taters05456, on 07/03/2008, -4/+27before someone else does it,
100101011101010001010111010010111010110001010100001010112
Now can no one else post that here?
thanks - SoCalChris, on 07/03/2008, -0/+21It's called Ternary Computers, and the Russians tried this in the 1950's. The problem that they ran into was determining when was a bit considered on, and when was it considered partially on. After much head scratching, the project was scrapped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer - FeargusMcDuff, on 07/03/2008, -0/+20This would ruin so many ***** jokes!
- arjie, on 07/03/2008, -2/+19So are they going to call it a tit, then? I know they want to.
- alexkim804, on 07/03/2008, -0/+16you scientists think you're so smart and great, i remember in my day 2 was 10!
- netnifty, on 07/03/2008, -0/+14I would assume we will just use Ternary (base 3) instead of Binary (base 2) so it would just go:
0
1
2
10
11
12
20
etc.
Presumably until the rest of the computer can work in Ternary it will transparently convert it to Binary when read and back when written, so you still have Ternary on disk (and hence the higher storage capacity) and don't have to worry about finding a third state of electrons to relay it along the wire. - LucasVB, on 07/03/2008, -2/+15The 3.1415925... is a pi
- TRScheel, on 07/03/2008, -0/+13Based off the recent trends...
HD Digital - Striss, on 07/03/2008, -2/+14The 2 is a pie
- kevinmotel, on 07/03/2008, -1/+13Hey baby, wanna kill all humans?
- keviniskool, on 07/03/2008, -0/+118 GB, close enough.
- flashingcurser, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10Crap, and I was just getting used to my binary clock.
- bizzarojamey, on 07/03/2008, -2/+12I for one am in favor. If you think about it binary gave us bits. With three values we get *****. And everyone loves *****.
- jonmac, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10Another decade or so and my patent on "3" will payoff....
- poet, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9So then,
0 = off
1 = on
2 = maybe off/on
WTF m8? - kevinmotel, on 07/03/2008, -2/+11you had me at *****
- GeneralFailure0, on 07/03/2008, -0/+90 = off
1 = in a quantum state of uncertainty
2 = on - bboyjkang, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9nanotechnology will increase your lifespan, which will let you see more advances in technology, which will increase your lifespan, which will let you see more advances in technology, which will increase your lifespan
I'm pretty sure you'll get to see it
just play it safe for the next 30-50 years - Balk2K, on 07/03/2008, -1/+10The traditional bit is not 'capable of storing ... the usual two [bit values]', a bit stores one bit which is either zero or one. If it goes to two then it's still not storing three bits and you can't call it a bit any more.
- santaliqueur, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8There are two types of people in the world. Those that think the saying "There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't." is funny, and those who don't.
- meruru, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8Nah it would just replace them with newer, ***** jokes
- gtluke, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7dual layer is just 2 layers of 0/1 i think
- moocow1452, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7Activate Tricorders!
- WorldSpinner, on 07/03/2008, -6/+131 is signal
0 is no signal
what the heck is 2?
electrons (atom participles) have two quantum stages (spin) up (1/2) and down (-1/2). No third stage. No 2s. - geodebug, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7robot hookers :-(
- santaliqueur, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7Trit?
- Farik, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_kurzweil#2020s
Great technology and cool stuff is not that far in the future... - bixby1, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7I tiny brain within a brain. Whatever the opposite of that is what my mom used to call me.
- gtluke, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5i dont' seem to see how ternary could be put on a chip. currently we just have a jillion transistors that read on/off or 1/0
unless they went more in an analog direction and went with on / off / halfway?
i do relay/ladder logic for a living, this is eludes me. - drcosquared, on 07/03/2008, -2/+7The 2 is a lie.
- Asrrin29, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5While this technology is fascinating and a breakthrough, it will be very hard to implement this technology into the market without some form of backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is the primary reason that machines today are the way they are. machines could be light years more efficient, faster, and cheaper if we used different software and hardware architectures, but because we built on top of old technology rather then replace it, it becomes harder to completely replace what we already have. Trinary computing would require a vastly different software architecture to take advantage of the extra memory states, and so on.
- mendicant, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5I thought that the main reason we didn't have something like this is because Ternary Logic (as opposed to the current Binary Logic) is far too complex and not necessary to model the logic needed.
I guess if it's just storing information and not using it for logic, then you would essentially be adding 50% capacity by adding a 3rd state. - DiscoLando, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6Dugg for the phallic photo.
- iKomplex, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4With that kind of argument, you would think it's common sense to have a No spin, a Right spin, a Left spin, and maybe other spin, state. My point exactly? It's not as simple as you're making it to be.
- faceless323, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4That's my favorite Bender line...
- thespanielator, on 07/03/2008, -4/+8I don't mean to be a pi nazi but it's
3.14159265 - HonoredMule, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Oh, what a setback will be the great Sneezing of 2034.
- jejones, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Are the designers of SETUN still alive and kicking? I think it would be cool to interview them in view of this development.
- arjie, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4There are 10 kinds of people, those who can read ternary, those who can't and those who think it's binary.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is