[QUOTE=xilman;444717]I'm sure that davar55 can argue his case for himself, but my preliminary analysis gives an ambiguous result. I argue from considerations of entropy or, equivalently, Kalmogorov complexity.

The chemical proposal (my original) has additional complication in that the input elements need to be selected and possibly sorted. The nuclear proposal does not, as all nucleons and electrons are identical, so it wins on this count. The output process appears to favour the chemical device in that isotopic composition is neglected entirely and depends only on the composition of the input. The nuclear device either has to contain tables of isotopes and their natural compositions or it produces output which is monoisotopic in each element, in which case only one table entry per element needs be provided.

Despite some clear advantages of the nuclear approach --- production of specific isotopes from any input material --- my guess is that the chemical device would be much easier to manufacture. The guess is based, not least, on the observation that quite a few primitive but programmable devices are already in production. They are called chemistry labs, chemical engineering plants and, of course, biological systems like GM yeasts and algae.[/QUOTE]If we equate "software efficiency" with data storage and access requirements then it would suggest that the subatomic approach would require more effort. Rather than simply "place a hydrogen atom here" it would need a further step "make a hydrogen atom consisting of <blah blah blah> and place it here". But perhaps davar55 has a different definition of "software efficiency"?

[QUOTE=retina;444719]If we equate "software efficiency" with data storage and access requirements then it would suggest that the subatomic approach would require more effort. Rather than simply "place a hydrogen atom here" it would need a further step "make a hydrogen atom consisting of <blah blah blah> and place it here". But perhaps davar55 has a different definition of "software efficiency"?[/QUOTE]I thought that was what I'd argued. Simpler on input, more complex on output.

[QUOTE=xilman;444725]I thought that was what I'd argued. Simpler on input, more complex on output.[/QUOTE]It appears that my reading comprehension subroutine is not functioning a peak efficiency. :sorry:

[QUOTE=retina;444727]It appears that my reading comprehension subroutine is not functioning a peak efficiency.[/QUOTE]

No problem. It happens to all of us.

It's called entropy.

[QUOTE=retina;444640]Hehe, so much focus upon communication toys. Perhaps someone feels somewhat lonely? :razz:

I'd like to see the elimination of light bulbs and replaced with all building surfaces able to emit light. No shadows, no dark spots, no bright spots, no blind spots.[/QUOTE]
You're making fun of me for being lonely? Wtf, man?

Yes, I'm a very lonely person. Paranoid schizophrenia makes it difficult to make and keep friends. I can never be sure if people hate me or if I'm simply paranoid. Sometimes I'll apologize for stuff I never even did according to others. It sucks.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;444642]I would be a huge fan of reflective screens.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean color reflective screens, though there may be a better word.

If it's JUST reflective then you simply have something that's already annoying the hell out of people, including myself.

Would anti-glare lenses work well against the reflection of things like the sun and overhead lighting on tablets? Or is that a different sort of glare somehow?

On a slightly different note, the following article might be interesting to some:

[url]http://semiaccurate.com/2016/10/05/displaylink-shows-off-8k60-video-one-cable/[/url]

Makes me wonder how dense the pixels can get before it becomes nonsensical for a person with 20/20 vision to upgrade their monitor's pixel density. My vision is about 20/80 or 20/100 unless I get an operation or start wearing contacts, so it might already be nonsensical for me to move beyond 1080p.

[QUOTE]Programmable chemical replicators.

You chuck stuff into an input hopper then the machine rearranges the atoms of that stuff into other stuff as specified by a program.[/QUOTE]

See [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Stephenson"]Neal Stephenson[/URL]'s "[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age"]The Diamond Age[/URL]" for a look at this technology: building anything from the elemental level.

[QUOTE=jasong;444736]You're making fun of me for being lonely? Wtf, man?[/QUOTE]Don't take it personally, I make fun of everyone. Anyhow it's only the Internet, it's not like it means anything important.

[QUOTE=retina;444727]It appears that my reading comprehension subroutine is not functioning a peak efficiency.[/QUOTE]
Well, that is why we have Xilman's device, to put your comprehension subroutine inside and re-arrange its atoms. Or nucleons, whatever... :razz:

[QUOTE=jasong;444737]I think you mean color reflective screens, though there may be a better word.
[/QUOTE]

Probably. I'm thinking of those "e-ink" readers which have exactly the same function as a black and white computer screen, except without any inherent (back-)lighting involved. Such things are much better for human eyes.

Well, to be accurate, I'm thinking of those things, except with color, which could then replace monitors as we currently know them.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;444770]Probably. I'm thinking of those "e-ink" readers which have exactly the same function as a black and white computer screen, except without any inherent (back-)lighting involved. Such things are much better for human eyes.

Well, to be accurate, I'm thinking of those things, except with color, which could then replace monitors as we currently know them.[/QUOTE]As long as the switching time is reduced to ten milliseconds or so. All the e-paper displays I've seen have switching times at least an order of magnitude too long for many purposes.

That said, 100ms full colour displays would undoubtedly be useful in may scenarios.