Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan3 who wrote (29246)	9/11/1999 12:42:00 AM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

>>... Some students just won't listen.<< *Maybe some students are just too* smart!**

To: Dan3 who wrote (29246)	9/11/1999 4:34:00 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi Dan3; Yes, I did teach mathematics and physics before I got into digital logic as a profession (back in 1985. I was an addicted hobbiest from 1979). I love teaching. But what I love most is practical theory. That is, high level theory that has practical applications, particularly in digital logic. That's why I went into engineering. I do think of my posts as being educational. What I am producing on this board is an introduction to the practical theory of DRAM memory system design. This board touts RMBS as being superior to all other candidates in most, if not all, significant ways. This is incorrect, and, in fact, it is the case that new engineering developments almost always have some disadvantages compared to the old technology (that they frequently replace completely). As an example of a memory technology that was replaced completely, consider core memory. This was replaced by semiconductor memory back by the mid to late 70s. But core had at least one feature that DRAM still doesn't have. Core retains data when completely powered down. Rumor has it that the shuttle first flew with some core memory. Core is still a lot more resistant to radiation, so maybe the military still flies some around... So it is always the case that we have to figure out the trade offs between competing technological choices. In order to do this, we have to look at the bad sides as well as the good. The longs on this thread can only see the good side, an attitude no working engineer would want to emulate. By the way, there is another thread where a company came up with a replacement technology (but for the internal combustion engine (ICE), rather than a memory bus). The technology of ICEs is quite fascinating. If you look through the first few hundred posts on the AENG thread for the intelligent short comments, you can learn amazing things about ICEs: (link to be supplied within 15 minutes) Briefly, AENG has a prototype gasoline engine that is more efficient than any commercially available ICE sold on the market. They have proved this in many tests at various places across the country. They got Carroll Shelby (sp?) to join the board of directors, along with several other racing icons. But the AENG story is getting kind of old, and none of the automotive manufacturers have decided to go with it. If you read the analysis and comments from the "short" engineers, it becomes clear why this is so. The prototype is a "hot rod" engine. That is, it is built to close to the limits of technology. This allows it to give incredible performance, but other things suffer for it. For example, wear and required material strengths issues. But read the posts, I learned about things like "average piston velocity" that ICE engineers work with all the time. Of course the AENG bulls claim that the technology is an everywhere improvement over current ICEs, and that eventually all engines will be AENG type, etc. Of course, plenty of shares are sold to the public, which simply does not have the engineering know how to evaluate the claims. That the stock is traded on the bulletin boards should make it clear to everyone that it is a joke, but hope springs eternal in the human breast. -- Carl