Memristors /memˈrɪstɚ/ ("memory resistors") are a class of passive two-terminal circuit elements that maintain a functional relationship between the time integrals of current and voltage. This results in resistance varying according to the device's memristance function. Specifically engineered memristors provide controllable resistance useful for switching current. The memristor is a special case in so-called "memristive systems", a class of mathematical models useful for certain empirically observed phenomena, such as the firing of neurons.[3] The definition of the memristor is based solely on fundamental circuit variables, similar to the resistor, capacitor, and inductor. Unlike those more familiar elements, the necessarily nonlinear memristors may be described by any of a variety of time-varying functions. As a result, memristors do not belong to linear time-invariant (LTI) circuit models. A linear time-invariant memristor is simply a conventional resistor.[4]

Memristor theory was formulated and named by Leon Chua in a 1971 paper. Chua strongly believed that a fourth device existed to provide conceptual symmetry with the resistor, inductor, and capacitor. This symmetry follows from the description of basic passive circuit elements as defined by a relation between two of the four fundamental circuit variables, namely voltage, current, charge and flux.[5] A device linking charge and flux (themselves defined as time integrals of current and voltage), which would be the memristor, was still hypothetical at the time. He did acknowledge that other scientists had already used fixed nonlinear flux-charge relationships.[6] However, it would not be until thirty-seven years later, on April 30, 2008, that a team at HP Labs led by the scientist R. Stanley Williams would announce the discovery of a switching memristor. Based on a thin film of titanium dioxide, it has been presented as an approximately ideal device.[7][8][9] Being much simpler than currently popular MOSFET switches and also able to implement one bit of non-volatile memory in a single device, memristors integrated with transistors may enable nanoscale computer technology. Chua also speculates that they may be useful in the construction of artificial neural networks.[10]

You're most welcome.

In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
Thanks for the promote

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Wow, I just watched a show last week about these vehicles. However it was animated, as if it was still in the conceptual phase. I didn't know they actually built one already, and it's pretty much exactly like it was drawn. Cool.

*promote

Thanks for the promote

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Wow, I just watched a show last week about these vehicles. However it was animated, as if it was still in the conceptual phase. I didn't know they actually built one already, and it's pretty much exactly like it was drawn. Cool.

*promote

Wow, I just watched a show last week about these vehicles. However it was animated, as if it was still in the conceptual phase. I didn't know they actually built one already, and it's pretty much exactly like it was drawn. Cool.

*promote

MaxWilder and harlequinn, I think you two are agreement at the conceptual level while your disagreements are occurring at the semantic level.

I tend to lean towards liking MaxWilder's definitions of agnostic and atheist though. I don't think there is any evidence for or against the existence of a deity; I simply don't know if God exists. By definition that makes me agnostic. I choose not to believe (i.e. have faith) that a god exists, and since I can't say I believe in God, that seems to imply that by definition I'm also an atheist. In other words, I think being agnostic makes one an atheist as well.

However, I recognize that the meanings of the words atheist and agnostic are used in ways that tend to imply slightly different definitions.

For example, many times people use agnostic when they mean to imply that they don't care or that it doesn't matter. I've even met people who were spiritual and religious (in a personal way) who called themselves agnostic as a way to describe the level at which they were religious. They may pray, but it doesn't bother them if the truth is that no god is listening.

I've also met people who think that the word atheist implies that the person believes there is no god.

If I had to give myself a label, I'd probably use "agnostic atheist" since I think it helps clear up the misunderstandings that sometimes come up.

I get what you are trying to say Harlequinn about there really being three states, so here's another analogy that may help.

(This analogy inspired from the classic Schrodinger's cat quantum mechanics thought experiment)

Suppose there is a box, in which a cat is placed. From your point of view, you can not see, hear, or sense the cat in any way. There is a button. When the button is pressed, the cat is either killed, or not killed. The button is pressed. Before the box is opened, someone turns to you and asks, "Is the cat alive?"

You could respond, "(I believe) the cat is alive." (Response A)
or you could respond, "(I believe) the cat is dead." (Response B)
or you could respond, "(I believe) I don't know." (Response C)

These responses are analogous to:
"(I believe) there is a god." (Response A)
"(I believe) there is not a god." (Response B)
"(I believe) I don't know if there is a god." (Response C)

The problem is, the terms theist, atheist, and agnostic, do not map one to one with these different responses, because an atheist doesn't have to be agnostic, but an agnostic has to be atheist. (per dictionary not necessarily common usage definitions). It seems to me that the best way to describe these three positions is as follows:

"(I believe) there is a god." (Response A) - Theist
"(I believe) there is not a god." (Response B) - Atheist, but not Agnostic
"(I believe) I don't know." (Response C) - Agnostic and Atheist

although i'm in favor of non-traditional unions--both homosexual *and* polygamous marriage, etc--i guess i see the arguing of *this* particular point to be moot

the point of contention is clearly the *ability* to procreate, rather than the *necessity* of the same

for argument's sake, take a look at the statutes of some u.s. states' vehicle codes...

in illinois, for example, all light trucks have to be registered as payload-bearing vehicles, and are even issued special license plates which depict a lower-case 'b' on the tag

does this mean that driving your light truck in illinois *without* a payload is illegal?

imho, there are stronger arguments in favor of non-traditional marriage than this quasi-strawman

if i had my druthers, we'd SETTLE THIS silly *marriage* issue ONCE AND FOR ALL... meaning that we completely do away with ANY and ALL barriers to ANYONE and EVERYONE, of an appropriate age (whatever that means), marrying for WHATEVER reason

it just seems to me that fighting this very emotional and exhausting political and moral battle *more than once* is inefficient and costly, both in time and money

having researched the history of marriage from its earliest conceptualization up to modern times, the history of the the advent of "romantic love" and its media inculcation over time, as well as the relatively recent disenfranchising (the last 100 years or so) of the rights of young adults--think for a second... if it's *immoral* to deny recognition of a homosexual union, then who are we to say (and why) that, say, two 14-17 year-olds cannot have their "love" recognized without social outcry and parental permission (stop and think of how much progeny has sprung from teenage "marriages" and "procreation" since time immemorial... i find the whole sorry mess to be based largely on ignorance

gay marriage has my support, but i'd be greatly disappointed if all this cacophony were to simply allow this *particular* group to attain satisfaction and *then* draw a moral line *behind* themselves

The speech is more breathtaking than the photo. Still, big upvote for Phil.
Sure, it's cool that our robots can take pictures of each other, but c'mon, favorite picture of all time?... what about the Hubble stuff we have of two galaxies ramming into each other? Or the good old M16? If it's the favorite based on conceptual grounds, how about the dark matter map or the COBE map? Or, recently, the first photograph of an extra-solar planet?

^i made a claim, and i backed it up. "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is essentially self-evident. it follows directly from human nature. however, someone people have a hard tome conceptualizing it, so i provided a technical essay in logic.

you made a claim, are you going to back it up with anything?

hmm... I don't know... the secret service should have all of Sen. Obama's African relatives murdered, just to be on the safe side.



My fav part is the interviewee is a member of 'EndTime Handmaidens and Servants of Jasper, Arkansas'. Resume booster!


BUT, best part on a conceptual level is that assholes just finished yelling and screaming about how Barack's African relatives, like a billion other people, are Muslim. Now they're some satanic voodoo doll people... sure, same diff I guess, right?

>> ^Farhad2000:
Yes this is true when we discuss these ideas conceptually but what I wanted to show is that its impossible for a free market to arise locally or internationally.


I don't think it is a valid conclusion to state that free markets are impossible by providing four examples of markets with some non-free components. Clearly, there are tens of thousands of such examples, but for me to prove that free markets exist, I need but one single example to disprove your statement that they are impossible. I found examples of free markets in all four of your examples--do you disagree? When you walk into the supermarket and buy an orange, what physical force, compulsion, or coercion exists in the exchange between you and the cashier? You cannot find a single example of exchange of trade that occurs in the absence of physical force, coercion, or compulsion? That is what you require when you make the statement "free markets don't exist" or "free markets are impossible".

And if you require at an entire market must be free for free markets to exist, then you assert that in the entire universe (or local, nation, etc.) if even a single person uses force on another in the action of trade the entire system of non-free. This is not only impractical, but impossible to ever prove or disprove without omniscience. This is why I am showing that a common error in failing to identify free markets is an overly-expanded scope.

Yes this is true when we discuss these ideas conceptually but what I wanted to show is that its impossible for a free market to arise locally or internationally.

>> ^kulpims:
^@Pprt: "chinese are bleeding the richest continent in the world dry"...
man, you can't be serious and say those words at the same time, especialy if you are coming from europe or the states, as I assume you do. that's like a bunch of vampires feeding of a dying man and when one more joins in the rest of them shout "murder!"
sure, chinese approach to this neo-colonialism is more totalitarian and not so cleverly masqueraded under the guise of free trade, democracy and market capitalism as was that from their western rivals which I dare say have been systematically killing Africa for hundreds of years now. and don't even get me started on the weapons trade issue, we all know who's the biggest dealer on the block here...
and fuck peter hitchens and other such critics. where are they when american pharmaceutical companies are conducting experiments on african people or over charging them for drugs and vaccines they desperatly need. where are they when millions of people are being killed for some bullshit minerals used in our cellphones or oil or fucking diamonds or some other shit they might have that our corporations are willing and able to steal from them


I sense alot of sympathy (and some guilt) on your behalf. As Pooterius said, I also anxiously await the day Africans will put aside their petty tribalism and begin working instead of loafing about and conducting sporadic warfare. However, I am not so optimistic as to believe that Africans can accomplish this any time soon. And for goodness sakes, it is NOT our duty to fix their countries.

I detect a hint of thought that you believe that Westeners have somehow have taken it upon themselves to eradicate the African peoples with AIDS in order, I assume, to plunder their territory.

You may be interested to know that recent discoveries (last week, actually) suggest that AIDS is far older than previously thought (see here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7213/abs/nature07390.html), dating from possibly 1908. Decades before bioengineering was even conceptualized.

The stark truth is that Africans have been around for longer than us, and have adapted to their environment accordingly in temperament and constitution. They have higher levels of sexual hormones, a lower gestation period a "thrifty" gene permitting greater retention of nutrients and as ethnomedicine evolves, drugs will further target their distinctive biology.

As for comparing Chinese to Western colonialism, it would be an interesting debate, although I can assure you that the way the Chinese go about in 2008 would never fly in a Western country. They have actually stated their intentions of offloading some of the large Chinese population in Africa. Their latest plan is to dump 10 million excess Chinese by 2050.

Yes but you see you also come down into say that governments showed actively regulate and be active within a market system which is not exactly what free marketers essentially believe, any sort of government interventionism be it regulation or laws impede the free market for them which they believe can self regulate.

I don't believe a free market can actually take into account anything besides the absolute drive to profit, because its conceptual and abstract much in the same way a corporation is legally seen as a entity of its own.

Personally I think the mix of a free and regulated market is the best for me, but its clearly seen that free markets are far more powerful when left to their own devices, you don't really see the government or the consumers lobby for better environmental standards or even quality control.

This is where informational asymmetry comes into play the inability of a consumer to judge effectively that brand A that is more expensive is better in terms of safety over brand B that is far cheaper but more dangerous. We as consumers have become part of the free market, only our drive is not for profit when consumers but to buy the most at the cheapest price. Wallmart prove this for me.

This is not of course factoring in ostentatious consumption and high tech gadgetry that follows more along the lines of the supply and demand of highly fashionable items.

>> ^Farhad2000:
A free market is a conceptual economical notion, most markets are not free, not because they have restrictions implied on them but because they function because of asymmetrical information.
A totally free market would also be a place where all information is freely and readily available, this is of course not the case from the health care market to the auto repair business right up to stock market trading (though here it comes very close).
However without asymmetrical information there wouldn't be large variance for large profit potentials.

By informational asymmetry, you mean one party (either the buyer or seller) has information that the other does not possess?

That is a good point you bring up. I plan on writing several more sections arguing for the economic basis of a free market and I'll be sure to discuss informational asymmetry--thanks for pointing that out. I decided to start with the philosophical underpinnings because they tend to come up later when going through the economic analysis.

A free market is a conceptual economical notion, most markets are not free, not because they have restrictions implied on them but because they function because of asymmetrical information.

A totally free market would also be a place where all information is freely and readily available, this is of course not the case from the health care market to the auto repair business right up to stock market trading (though here it comes very close).

However without asymmetrical information there wouldn't be large variance for large profit potentials.