Slashdot Mirror


IBM Creates 1st Single Molecule Computer Circuit

Llowfyr writes "Yahoo has reports that IBM researchers have created the first ever single molecule computer circuits which may someday lead to a new class of smaller and faster computers that consume less power than today's machines. The IBM team made a `` voltage inverter '' -- one of the three fundamental logic circuits that are the basis for all of today's computers -- from a carbon nanotube, a tube-shaped molecule of carbon atoms that is 100,000 times thinner than a human hair. IBM scientists will present the achievement today at the 222nd National Meeting of the American Chemical Society being held in Chicago and it appears in the web edition of the ACS' journal Nano Letters."

148 comments

  1. A crystal is a single molecule. by blair1q · · Score: 1, Troll

    Geez. Didn't you guys learn anything in chemistry?

    A crystal is a single molecule. A transistor is a single molecular structure. It won't work any other way.

    --Blair

    1. Re:A crystal is a single molecule. by keflex · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're way ahead of the IBM scientists...

      --


      My karma is -1 because I don't use AC posting. LOL.
  2. That's Really Cool and All by XBL · · Score: 2, Funny

    but when can I actually buy a computer with this technology? 10 years from now?

    I like to see research of this type, but there needs to be more research with short-term effect.

    1. Re:That's Really Cool and All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They talk a lot about proper doping in those articles. I have experimented with a lot of dope, but I NEVER got high enough to see no banano tube.

    2. Re:That's Really Cool and All by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      Well I suppose you could have been a little more short sighted about your comment, but I am not sure how.

      Think about research in general. Intel had computers that would function at or above the 1GHz threshold nearly 10 years ago. Plastics were invented before WWII by government contractors but didn't see mainstream use until the late 40s early 50s. And even more importantly than that, computers were invented by research insititutions way before you could have purchsased one for your personal use.

      So I wouldn't really be complaining too much. Good things come to geeks that wait.

      If everything was "invented" with only the quick time to market approach in mind, then we would have lots of crappy inventions with only no long term possibilities.

      Oops My cell is ringing. (Hummm . . . total mobile communication, that was available to military units in vietnam but not publically available to the public until much later.)

  3. Some weird title by quartz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ask Slashdot: IBM Creates 1st Single Molecule Computer Circuit

    Erm, what was the question again?

    1. Re:Some weird title by JohnG · · Score: 1
      Dude, I think it's slashdot jeopardy. We are supposed to give our answers in the form of a question.
      What groundbreaking achievement will IBM announce soon? :)

  4. i wonder by boaworm · · Score: 1
    How does this affect the recent discussions about Moore's law ? There were doubts it would not hold for much longer. Are these nanotubes in the calculations ?


    Well... this surely looks like another great step towards high performance computing!

    --
    Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
    Aristotele
    1. Re:i wonder by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Moore's law will hold for quite a long time, inasmuch as it's already been crocked by adapting it to apply to microprocessor computing power, when it was originally developed to describe memory-chip bit capacity.

      Once it starts to break down for silicon-transistor circuits, the "capacity" metrics will be transferred to whatever follows.

      The interesting thing about Moore's law is that it may be unprovably vague.

      Einstein posed a theorem he said he never could prove:
      If you travel from point A to point B at an average speed of v miles per hour (where B and A are more than v miles apart), there will always be an interval exactly v miles long that you will transit in exactly one hour.
      How this relates to Moore's law is if you replace distance with transistor count, then along the way you will find intervals where you have doubled the transistor count in 18-24 months.

      This feature allows hypesters every once in a while to prove to themselves that "it still works" to whatever precision they desire.

      But they're not entirely dishonest, since this only works because Moore's law has a long-term stable average.

      --Blair
    2. Re:i wonder by blair1q · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Gordon Moore has several billion dollars and is Chairman Emeritus of one of the fifth or sixth biggest corporation in the world*.

      Meanwhile, your name insults you, you have no karma, and your posts are moderated down by default.

      You do the math.

      --Blair
      "Who loves ya baby."

      * - They used to be first, but people stopped buying cell-phones, and the whole transistorized-crap market went south from there. Now the money's in gasoline and baby clothes.

    3. Re:i wonder by tim_maroney · · Score: 2

      How does this affect the recent discussions about Moore's law ?

      It doesn't affect them much. It's good to have a proof of concept for a nanotube NOT gate, but it leaves open questions of manufacturing and connectivity which would be crucial to creating a real technology from this kind of circuit element. I don't think anyone doubted that nanoscale gates were possible, but what is more questionable is how they can be economically assembled and effectively interconnected.

      Tim

  5. Can you imagine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    a Beowulf cluster of these babies?

    1. Re:Can you imagine.. by SumDeusExMachina · · Score: 1
      Although the parent post may seem like a troll at first glance, it actually raises several interesting problems. One of the first questions that comes to my mind is "How would you write a TCP/IP stack for a nanotube?"

      Of course, there are many other intriguing fields of research that this opens up, such as the problem of making a processor that consists of only 1 nanotube and creating some kind of networking interface that would allow individual nanotubes to communicate.

      So please, before you go off blindly moderating posts such as these, please think of the questions that they are really asking, rather than your ingrained Slashdot instincts.

      --

      Is your company running tools written by ma
  6. Re:Another Reason Why America Will Dominate Foreve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Boohooo, we stinking French farmers can't compete, please block America from importing food here Mr. EUcrat"


    Oh shut up, you guys do the same shit, look at softwood lumber: "boohoo we can't compete, let's put a 19% tariff on imports from Canada". Apparently free trade is only free when it's in you favour.

  7. That was a really lame troll by DirtMcGirt · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Whatever happened to the subtle, witty ones?

    1. Re:That was a really lame troll by dankjones · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hmm...How about a beowulf cluster of these?

  8. You'd need to use scanning electron microscope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...to even see a beowulf cluster of these ;)

  9. That was a really lame troll of a troll by XBL · · Score: 1

    Whatever happened to the ones that just shut up?

  10. Gain? by BiggestPOS · · Score: 1
    More importantly, the output signal from IBM's new nanotube circuit is stronger than the input

    Ok, lots of smart people on /. someone explain this please. Because the article sure doesn't!

    --
    What, me worry?
    1. Re:Gain? by GospelHead821 · · Score: 1

      This is possible when there's an active power supply involved in the circuit, in addition to the signal itself. The signal enters the circuit and the presence of the power supply allows for the amplification of the resulting signal.

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
    2. Re:Gain? by dr.+loser · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gain is a common figure of merit of transistor-based amplifier circuits. The gain of a voltage amplifier is defined as the ratio of the size of the output signal to the size of the input signal. An amplifier that could take a 0.5V amplitude sine wave as its input and produce a 5V amplitude sine wave as its output has a gain of 10. You don't get something for nothing, of course - the amplifier has to be connected to an external power source.

      A transistor is a three-terminal device. In a typical computer chip, these three terminals are called the source, the drain, and the gate. For a given voltage between the source and drain, the current that flows into the drain is strongly dependent on the voltage applied to the gate. That's what allows transistors to be used as switches: you can make a transistor that won't let current flow from source to drain unless the gate voltage is turned up past some value.

      Achieving actual gain in a single-molecule device is important. Without gain greater than one, it's not possible to efficiently chain large numbers of transistors together to manipulate signals. A strong input would get degraded with each stage of transistor manipulation, eventually falling to a level too small to drive subsequent transistors.

      There are *many* problems with the idea of using individual molecules to replace Si devices. Achieving a gain > 1 is a necessary but by no means sufficient step for eventual molecule-based computers. As a physicist, I think it's important to recognize real achievements in this field, but not to buy into the hype unquestioningly.

  11. huh... by piecewise · · Score: 3, Funny

    Huh? I don't get it.

    Dammit. Back in my day, we had real transistors, and silicon. We made chips out of SAND, dammit! None of this molecule pish posh. I ain't never gonna use some computer made from plants. You new-age scientists sure are ungrateful...

    --
    The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    1. Re:huh... by piecewise · · Score: 1

      Troll? I was just being humerous. Eh, whatever. :-) I'll joke less.

      --
      The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
  12. Why is this under ASK SLASHDOT?? by tavon79 · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Why is this exactly under "ask slashdot?"

    1. Re:Why is this under ASK SLASHDOT?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you asking slashdot?

    2. Re:Why is this under ASK SLASHDOT?? by Kynde · · Score: 1

      Weird... Perhaps I should head over to Mozilla bugzilla and inform them that my mozzy doesn't show this article under "Ask Slashdot?"

      ---

      "A man alone in the forrest talking to himself. Is he still wrong?"

      --
      1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
  13. ACS is cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nano Letters, courtesy of the ACS.

    There are many interesting articles there including one of the previous stories here regarding carbon nanotubes.

    have fun..

  14. Very nice... by KewLinux · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...but does it run Linux?

    --
    fear my zig!
  15. Also on news.com by stikves · · Score: 1
    This article is also on news.cnet.com.


    (In case you may want to check)

  16. There is an ominosity to this whole nano thing by xcomputer_man · · Score: 1


    Since IBM has successfully made a NOT gate out of a single molecule, they have made about 1/3 progress towards realizing a complete computer system made out of molecules. In fact, if they could make NAND gates out of these nanotubes, then they have everything they need to build a computing system since a NAND gate is functionally complete. Question is, does this mean that in the near future, the government will be able to implant invisible microchips in people for identification and tracking purposes, and what does this mean? Is this a bad thing looming in the future?

  17. Uhhhhh no. by 11thangel · · Score: 2

    Crystals arent molecules at all. Crystals are crystal lattices, which are all ionic compounds. molecules are covalent. Which one of you was it that didnt learn anything in chemistry again?

    --

    I am !amused.
  18. 100,000 times thinner than a human hair by nick_davison · · Score: 2

    100,000 times thinner than a human hair

    There is hope for us blonds yet.

    1. Re:100,000 times thinner than a human hair by garcia · · Score: 2

      umm it's for overweight people...

    2. Re:100,000 times thinner than a human hair by jovlinger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ya know... this is turning into a real pet peeve of mine:

      100,000 times thinner, reduced by 200%, 3 times less power...

      I see what they mean, most of the time (although the 200% is kinda vague) but if you mean 1/100,000th as thick, that is not really the same as 100,000 times thinner. I tend to view thin and thick as complements under addition, not reciprocals.

      mutter mutter. Pedants are never bored, but tend to be boring.

  19. IBM will be here for a long time .. by fymidos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    IBM has been going down since 198something when compaq entered the pc market .. but it's still here .
    It has software,hardware and propably the best R&D department in the area of computers ..

    IBM will stay . Sun will stay ..

    for some software company lately trying hardware market i don't know ..

    --
    Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
  20. AND and OR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The processors at the heart of today' s computers are basically vast and intricate combinations of the NOT gate, with two other basic functions, ``AND'' and ``OR'' gates, which perform other computations

    They meant ``NAND'' and ``NOR'', no?

    1. Re:AND and OR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. NOT/AND/OR are the operations in boolean expressions. NAND/NOR can IMPLEMENT the first three and to show how wrong you actually are, why would you want both NAND and NOR if you can implement one with the other. NAND is perfectly fine on its own as is NOR. Loser.

    2. Re:AND and OR? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      They don't know what they mean.

      A transistor either switches a current path off (output_on = power_on AND NOT control_on) or it switches it on (output_on = power_on AND control_on).

      Those are the real building blocks. Larger structures like gates and flip-flops are combinations of those two facts.

      Some circuits use multi-leveled logic, but those have to be converted to boolean logic* before they can get anywhere near your computer.

      --Blair

      * - or whatever passes for it at the NY Times...

    3. Re:AND and OR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even have a clue of what a transistor is?

    4. Re:AND and OR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello? you can't directly make an AND or OR (in cmos anyway). You have to use either a NAND or an NOR then invert the result. Thus, all (cmos) logic circuits are made with either NANDs or NORs. It may very well be that using nanotubes you can make AND and OR gates, but yahoo said "The processors at the heart of today' s computers", therefore they were wrong and so are you, loser.

    5. Re:AND and OR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Reading Comprehension 101.

      NAND is a COMPLEX boolean expression. There are exactly three boolean operations: NOT, AND and OR. Now if you think all logic circuits are made with NAND and NOR gates, you are seriously clueless. Try implementing an XOR with NANDs or NORs. Tell me how many transistors it takes you. Ever hear of an AOI gate? How many transistors is an inverter. How many transistors is a NAND gate used as an inverter?

      Now since you are saying all logic circuits are made with either NAND or NOR gates, who's the loser now? Loser.

    6. Re:AND and OR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      AND and OR are used to describe boolean functions on paper, but when it comes to implementation you do not use AND and OR! and we are talking about implementation here.

      Now if you think all logic circuits are made with NAND and NOR gates

      I meant they're used to implement logic circuits _instead_of_ AND and OR. You can/do still use NOT, XOR and compound logic to minimize transistor count, but you wouldn't blindly use AND and OR. Ever try creating a multiplier using just AND and OR gates?

    7. Re:AND and OR? by Guignol · · Score: 1

      Well, no. Your parent is correct.
      You only need NAND to do whatever you want.
      NAND(A,A) => NOT(A)
      NAND(NAND(A,A),NAND(B,B)) => OR(A,B)
      etc..etc.. realy not that hard..
      For most logic implementations, this is the way it is done. (although sometimes NOR is used instead).
      Anyway, have a look at Randall Hyde's Art of Assembly for a source you can trust about it.
      The idea is, NAND gates are cheaper than other gates, and it's easier to build logic structures with the same basic blocks.

    8. Re:AND and OR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a source I can trust I'll look at a real designs which I do every day. Art of Assembly? No thanks. This is the classic case of /.ers reading something somewhere and thinking they know everything about the subject.

      Again how many transistors is an XOR implemented with NAND gates. Do you know what an AOI gate is? NAND gates are cheaper than other gates? Are you kidding me? How many transistors is a 2:1 multiplexor implemented with NAND gates? Do you think custom layouts only use NAND gates? Do you think automaticaly synthesized expressions only use NAND gates? Again, do you know what an AOI gate is?

    9. Re:AND and OR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a clue, multipliers are not implemented in normal gates. Implementing boolean functions with separate gates is far to expensive in transistor count. The boolean expression such as the carry output can be easily implemented in CMOS in such a way that it is plainly obvious that NAND and NOR gates are not used. The gates are not necessary, the function exists by itself. How many transistors do you think /(AB+C) takes in CMOS. It takes me 6. How many transistors is a two input NAND gate? 4. Now tell me how many transistors it takes you to make that simple expression just using NAND gates.

    10. Re:AND and OR? by Guignol · · Score: 1

      For a source I can trust I'll look at a real designs which I do every day
      Oh :)
      Art of Assembly? No thanks
      Why not ? is it that bad ? Anyway, the book is at most introductive to logic, but it's still a good read.
      This is the classic case of /.ers reading something somewhere and thinking they know everything about the subject.
      This is the classic case of someone generalizing about slashdot.
      First I don't think I know everything about something I don't practice everyday.
      Second, I don't think I know everything about things I actualy practice everyday either. Neither should you. :P
      blablabla
      err.. alright,
      hmmm AOI, and or invert
      OAI or and invert
      I don't think custom layout use only nand gates, and I didn't say so, I said NAND are the most comonly used blocks for circuits design.
      I might be wrong I honestly don't witness it everyday :)
      Still, that's what I learnt I school (though it was realy introductive, oh well, they always tell us they lied last year the year after don't they ?).
      Anyway, the point was that having a NAND built out of ANDs and NOTS might be intuitive, it is not necesarily what happens at circuit design.
      Using AOI gates to build XOR or whatever is a good example of the point I was trying to make.
      So calm down, get some sleep, whatever...
      In case you insist, the point was:
      Basic building blocks aren't the one you might think, at least, not for the reason that was given. (boolean algebra operators, blablabla).
      So I think, I heard it from several sources, that NAND gates are in fact the most used, for the given reasons that are very dependent of (time/technology/specific design/etc..)
      If you tell me the earth is a ball because it's the best shape to fly in the air,
      then I tell you earth doesn't fly in the air, and by the way, I have heard it is in fact a cube,
      I'm obviously mistaken, and in the end, you might end being correct, but your logic was flawed anyway.

    11. Re:AND and OR? by CrazyBrett · · Score: 1
      Everyone's missed the mark slightly, it seems. Boy am I glad I paid attention in my EE class right now...

      The most widely-used building block of modern computer circuits is the transistor. They come in 2 basic flavors, n-type and p-type. The difference, in layman's terms, is that n-types switch current on, and p-types switch current off. This was covered pretty well.

      The computer world works in terms of binary logic functions, so we use transistors to build logic circuits. The simplest logic circuit that can be built is an inverter (NOT gate, etc). This takes 2 transistors (one of each type). Doing this on a molecule level is what IBM has just accomplished.

      By itself, the NOT function is hardly useful, since it has only one input. To perform complex calculations, we use functions like OR, AND, NOR, NAND, XOR, etc, which have 2 inputs. As it turns out, the ones that human beings comprehend easily (AND and OR) are not the easiest to build, transistor-wise. NAND and NOR each require 4 transistors to build (two of each type), and have similar layouts. This is convenient because both functions (as mentioned) can be used exclusively to generate any possible binary function.

      In practice, NAND gates are used most often in computer logic. Why? Although they are equally easy to build, the NOR gate requires you to stack two p-type transistors on top of each other. Due to their electrical characteristics, p-type transistors are significantly slower than n-type ones. Stacking them together only exacerbates the performance problem. Hence, we use NANDs whenever possible.

      However, we still see a significant number of NOR gates in most computer architectures. The reason? NOR gates are the fundamental building block of flip-flops (a circuit that can "remember" a value), which are combined to make registers. Since RISC architectures tend to have a lot of registers (both visible and hidden in the pipeline system), we see plenty of NOR gates as well.

      -- Brett

    12. Re:AND and OR? by Guignol · · Score: 1

      ???
      I really don't see how this is different than what I was saying. (besides being more detailed)
      :)
      Oh well... doesn't matter :)

    13. Re:AND and OR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure glad your EE class taught you everything there is to know about gates.

      And by the way, since NOT functions are hardly useful, I wonder what buffers are made out of.

      Now, why use 2 input gates when you can have 4 input gates? I don't know what else to say here except do some reading on technology mapping.

      Ok, now I have to clarify something for you. You're correct that a simple non-clocked latch would be 2 NOR gates (and a NOT gate). Adding clock control would add two more AND gates. So in your world that means 2*NOR + 2*NAND +3*NOT = 22 transistors

      In my world (using static logic just like you) that is 14 transistors. Again I have to ask you the same question I've been asking everybody. Do you know what an AOI gate is?

      Here's the bottom line. If your doing custom layout, for the most part you don't even think in terms of gates, only boolean expressions. If you're doing synthesized designs, NAND is only one of the many options available and the software will choose what combination of gates match the boolean function and have the fewest transistors or least area or etc. You have gates like INV, 2-input NAND, 3-input NAND, 4-input NAND, combinations of AOI, combinations of OAI (less common), and then things like MUXes. For things like 3, 4 input NAND, AOI/OAI and MUXes the original layout of that gate was done by hand but once again they are not thinking in terms of gates at all because to do the best job at creating the cell the focus is on creating the boolean function. This is very important because it is naive to think that chip are covered in 2-input NAND gates. How many transistors is a 3-input NAND gate implemented only using 2-input NAND gates? Do you know what an AOI gate is?

    14. Re:AND and OR? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      That you would ask that question in this context makes it pretty clear that you don't.

      IOW, don't mistake my populist renaming of the ports as inexperience.

      --Blair

  21. The next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    What IBM need to do now is make an AND gate. The output of an AND gate, fed into a NOT gate (NAND), can form the building block of any digital logic element you care to name (gates, registers, etc.) Then they need to figure out how to join them together, and get signals in and out. Then figure out if a nanotube processor would actually be useful! :> Anyone know the theoretical switching time of these type of devices?

    1. Re:The next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually NANDs and NORs are easier to make (in CMOS anyway) then ANDs and ORs (which are just NANDs and NORs with inverters on them).

    2. Re:The next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the grammatically challenged, like most of the IT people on /., s/then/than/

    3. Re:The next step by junkgui · · Score: 1

      wouldnt it be more simple to just build a pnp transistor...

  22. Re:VA Linux bankruptcy predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully when they go bankrupt ESR will shut up!

  23. I like this by ispq · · Score: 1

    I love to see the advancement of human knowledge, especially when it bodes well for making faster and smaller computers. It will probably be ten years before we see direct consumer benefit, but, hey, this research all has to be done sooner or later.

  24. The Hair by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2
    When, why, and because of whom did the human hair become the standard unit of distance. This IBM circuit is 10 microhairs, great. Exactly how big is a hair again? I've got hairs of varying sizes on my scalp, my eyelids, and my lip. Which one of them is the SI standard? Is there a man at the national institute of weights and measures who is the caretaker of the reference hair?

    Just tell me big the damn thing is in regular units: meters, angstroms, astronomical units, whatever.

    1. Re:The Hair by Yorrike · · Score: 1

      Yep, he's the same guy who instigated the use of "football field" as a standard measurement.

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    2. Re:The Hair by Paul+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      It's 50-100 microns in diameter. Most people have no idea what a micron is, and the article is a popular press item. I suspect that is also why they mentioned the AND, OR, and NOT gates instead of simply the functionally complete NAND gate.

      Still, kudos to them for posting references to papers published by the research group.

    3. Re:The Hair by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Because not everyone is a techno bigot. A hair is thin. Something that is 100,000 times thinner than a hair is REALLY thin. Very easy for us human types to understand.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    4. Re:The Hair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people don't even know what an AND, OR or NOT gate is. And what do you have against NOR gates?

    5. Re:The Hair by bartyboy · · Score: 1

      A hair is not REALLY thin.

      A typical scalp hair is about 4/1000 of an inch. A standard machine shop tolerance is 1/1000. And there is a big difference between 0.999 and 1.000 when you're trying to fit an exact 1.000 bushing into a hole. One will give you a press fit, and the other a slide fit. 4 thousands of an inch is often not even an acceptable tolerance.

      But since Joe Average has never been seen a vernier caliper in his life, he's got no clue how thick a piece of paper or a human hair is. All he knows is that it's thin and that if something's 100,000 times thinner, it's VERY thin.

      Then again, I have trouble imagining anything smaller than 1/10,000th of an inch. There are just some things that are very hard to visualize.

      bart

    6. Re:The Hair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then there's that weatherman I knew who always kept a golfball on his desk.

      When people asked him "what's that", he'd reply "it's a golfball the size of a hailstone".

    7. Re:The Hair by DivineOb · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      There are just some things that are very hard to visualize.


      such as your penis?
      --

      I must burn in hell, suffer and pay for my sins
      But Gods the one who's losing, Satan always wins!

    8. Re:The Hair by Spinality · · Score: 2

      When, why, and because of whom did the human hair become the standard unit of distance? -- Jeffery Baker

      Hair diameter is a tried-and-true, reputable engineering metric. Every engineer has talked about something being a 'CH' or 'RCH' or 'BCH' too big or too small for a given application. It's therefore very natural that multiples of hair size would be used to describe other very small distances.

      Perhaps this is only true for engineers of a particular generation and older. But it's a usage with plenty of tradition. :)

      --Trevor

      --
      -- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
  25. How original! by XJoshX · · Score: 1

    ...which may someday lead to a new class of smaller and faster computers that consume less power than today's machines.

    Jeez.. I hope whoever to persue this "smaller, faster, more efficient" idea a raise.. What a novel idea...

  26. For those of us who would like a bit more info... by EvlPenguin · · Score: 5, Informative

    I found the full paper here (that's http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/nalefd/nl015606f_rev. html for you paranoid types).

    I was just thinking - they say their NOR gate is the size of approx. 1/100,000th the width of a human hair. Well, today's 1.4 GHz chips contain ~22 million transistors. That would make it 220 human hairs wide. That's a lot of power in a small space. I can't wait till the day I can crack RC5 on my cell phone.

    --

    --
    #nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
  27. A Thank You Letter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to thank all the trolls and crapflooders for the ASCII art that thay have been submitting latlely. I was beginnning to worry that Slashdot's continual move towards censorship (renumbering the threads, submission delay, lameness filter, etc.) was going to destroy one of the last true enjoyable sites on the web. I was even thinking about not visiting Slashdot anymore, esp. if it was going to be only linux users all self gratifying themselves through moderation. Again, you have my thanks. You have begun to restore my faith in humanity and in the human spirit.

    1. Re:A Thank You Letter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      esp. if it was going to be only linux users all self gratifying themselves through moderation.

      Slashdot has been completely taken over by pro-windows Zealots. Most linux stories are now filled with crap and troll posts. If anything, slashdot now sucks because of this.

  28. science illiterates know the size of a hair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hence it's use as a measure

  29. Yuh-huh by blair1q · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your education is shallow and misled.

    Diamond is not an ionic compound. It is composed of carbon atoms in the optimal arrangement to form covalent bonds. Tell me diamond isn't a crystal.

    Bonds are rarely 100% covalent or 100% ionic. A crystal is a single molecule (but not all single molecules are crystals). These facts are old. Very old. Older than your textbooks. Shame on your school.

    I won't get into the semantic argument about solids, liquids, gases, and how any of them can be said to form or be formed by crystals, because that would only confuse you (and because in the more intricate cases I'm bound to forget the details and my book is in another state). Just trust that the definition of "crystal" that you are using here is very inadequate.

    Go search on a few things:

    Ionic Bond
    Covalent Bond
    Ionic Character
    _General Chemistry_, by Linus Pauling*

    --Blair
    "We teach chemistry like it's either a foreign language about a dead religion or a way to make the neighborhood kids think we're cool."

    P.S. I'd like to thank the Academy for down-modding my original post. It's always nice to see that the forces of intolerant ignorance continue to crawl the planet. It keeps an exterminator of such things in poker money.

    * - the Dover 1989 reprint of the 1954 edition only costs like $14. How much did you pay for a semester of your college's misapprehensions?

    1. Re:Yuh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'd like to thank the Academy for down-modding my original post

      Keep in mind you probably weren't modded down because your chemistry was incorrect. You were modded down because you were making a useless smartass remark in a (futile) attempt for first post.

    2. Re:Yuh-huh by KidSock · · Score: 2

      A crystal is a single molecule (but not all single molecules are crystals). These facts are old. Very old.

      If this (and the comment before it) suggest that crystals cannot be formed by ionic bonds then you are totally incorrect. Most crystals are formed by ionic bonds. Diamond and graphite are exceptional in this respect. The result is not "one molecule". If it is placed back into a suitable solvent it will dissolve (e.g. NaCl).

    3. Re:Yuh-huh by addaon · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying the parent is wrong... only that it's posts like this that make me wish there was a -1, asshole moderation.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    4. Re:Yuh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crystals are not considered molocules by convention, sometimes with much contentions. Nanotubes actualy fall somewere in between what is considered a crystal and what is considered a molocule.

    5. Re:Yuh-huh by Kynde · · Score: 1

      First off, you're correct for the most part, but just to clarify this a bit for the other readers.
      The whole separation of bonds into ionic and covalent bonds is a little like dividing daylight into night and day. There is difference, but it's _not_ a division. As with night and day, there's dusk, noon, evening and dawn and every shade in between.

      The carbon compouds like the nanotubes and other amorphous carbon structures fall somewhere between ionic crystals and covalent molecules. For example substances like Titanium Carbide contain a whole bunch of indistinguishable bonds ranging all the way from fairly ionic to purely covalent.

      The way covalent and ionic bonds are taught as exclusive alternatives, like two different types of bonds, gets torn apart after highschool when the bond gets looked at the way it should be. Roughly, as the relaxation of the electronic wave function around nearby atoms into a stable structure in the given temperature.

      The division into covalent and ionic bonds may be a practical one (especially for people not at all interested in quantum/computational physics) for some compounds, but one shouldn't forget that there's a whole range of stuff between NaCl and Diamond.

      Modern physics is quite embarrased that it has let the 1900's picture of litium become it's symbol, because for almost a century the physicists
      haven't concidered electrons as orbiting balls.

      --
      1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
    6. Re:Yuh-huh by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Actually, I was clarifying a glaring misapprehension in the media.

      The fact that I almost got First Post is because: (1) it's exceptionally glaring, so it didn't take long to devise or express; and, (2) Slashdot was hiccupping that day.

      The story had been online a good minute and a half before I sent my response. Time for 12-15 actual Firts Psots on a normal day.

      I didn't even expect I'd be first-in on the subject of crystals as big, repetitive molecules...

      --Blair
      "You're faceless and your mother karmas you funny."

  30. I want to see more advanced software for it by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Interesting


    I would want to buy one of the first nano-computers as well but I think we both would be dissapointed initially. The problem is today's machines are already over powered for what most I would be more interested in something that takes advantage of the smallness and lots of extra CPU power. As it is today's desktops are way overpowered for most applications. MY computer compiles all my code in a blink of an eye and if you lowered the CPU speed by a few hundred megahertz, I would probably not even know the difference. What I am waiting for are nano-computers integrated in nail polish, wall paper, and clothes with verbal interfaces like Star Trek TNG. Would it be sweet to have you clothes download the next style automatically instead of buying new clothes or wouldn't it be cool to say "computer, play cnn news", and your whole wallpaper turns into a television screen playing the news.

    With embedded nano-based technology this will be a reality. I have serve ADHD and if I can have a computer do real research with a verbal interface and advanced AI to interpret what I ask, and retrieve the data, I could write a research paper in a third of the time. No more library visits! It's all retrieved for me. I love LCARS on star trek's enterprise D where you can receive and information you wanted just by asking.

    My guess is the first generation of nano-desktops will be mediocre because they will run the same software as today, or Microsoft will take years to write a version of windows for it so it stays locked up in R&D labs for years. Kind of like IA-64 syndrome. It already runs Linux but Intel wont release it because Microsoft is not done writing windows for it. I guess the business world does not see reality existing outside of windows. Sigh.

    Anyway the extra apps like IA, verbal speech recognition, advanced clustering, pixel generation, and advanced networking would come years after the technology is out. Perhaps the Gnu community can address these needs as corporations will try to propritize the market and exploit it for high prices.

    1. Re:I want to see more advanced software for it by mother_superius · · Score: 1
      download the next style automatically instead of buying new clothes



      You're kidding me. You're letting some commercial tell you what to buy instead of getting what appeals to you? As soon as the commercial tells you that your clothes aren't good anymore (but last year they were a necessity), the clothes suddenly go from good to bad? What changed from last year?

    2. Re:I want to see more advanced software for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it be sweet to have you clothes download the next style automatically instead of buying new clothes...

      Ummm, no.

      Anonymous cowards look terrible in stripes.

    3. Re:I want to see more advanced software for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that they already have some ideas on how to use
      as a very scalable operating system.
      Take a look here and here .
      However, on a molecular computer even a stripped down
      flavour of Linux would be too heavy to run, but it's
      interesting that they're putting it on such different
      platforms.

  31. oops by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2
    "I would want to buy one of the first nano-computers as well but I think we both would be dissapointed initially. The problem is today's machines are already over powered for what most I would be more interested in something that takes advantage of the smallness and lots of extra CPU power."

    I was cuting and pasting two paragraphs and I scrwed up.

    I meant to say " The problem is, today's machines are already over powered for what most people actually use them for. I would be more interested in something that takes advantage of the smallness and lots of extra CPU power."

    Boy do I feel like an idiot.

  32. Shitty troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EOM

  33. The problem is: by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...which may someday lead to a new class of smaller and faster computers that consume less power than today's machines.

    The problem is that with all this power, we still have lazy programmers that aren't writing cleaner, more efficient code, basically negating all the advances that have been made in processing technology. I mean, computers today are a million times faster than they were years ago, but do we see any major increase in speed?

    --


    _______________________________
    "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
    1. Re:The problem is: by Scooter · · Score: 1

      Hehe - Moores other law of computing:-

      "The actual speed of operation is a constant."

      Eg - for each breakthrough in transistor density and such like, there is some naff mathematically nice nonsense like Java which runs like a lame donkey after a heavy meal, and is practically useless unles you can boost the power of your computer by an order of magnitude :)

    2. Re:The problem is: by pkesel · · Score: 1

      My first reaction to your troll is "Blow me!" But when I get beyond your asinine superior attitude I can make an intelligent comment.

      Code today is written to the specifications given and time allotted. It's done with the tools and information provided. We all know our code could be better. We know there are techniques out there by which we would benefit. The quality of the product is directly related to the financial gain and risk.

      It's just like any other business. We could be riding in ultra-safe cars, with ultra-efficient engines. We could be living in bigger homes that cost less to heat or cool. Hell, they could even make a scissors that's safe to run with. But it's not cost effective.

      And then there are those who think Java is the best computing language. You think that garbage collection is free? You think that Hashtable or Vector is an efficient way to store your information? You think the JVM isn't wasting cycles you might put to better use? You talk about lazy programmers.

      --
      - Sig this!
  34. Re:Another Reason Why America Will Dominate Foreve by yomegaman · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Pharoahic Egypt will dominate forever. The Greeks are always drunk, and the Romans? They live in a freaking swamp! Don't even get me started on the Persians... Clearly, Egypt will forever dominate the world.

    --
    ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
  35. Re:Blacks, Caucasians, Indians by yomegaman · · Score: 1

    Wow, Reggie White reads Slashdot!

    --
    ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
  36. Re:big fuck-de-do by xXgeneric+nicknameXx · · Score: 1

    I'm made out of molecules too...my mom was even further ahead of the times than Apple.

    --

    My cat's breath smells like cat food.--R. Wiggums

  37. You think it's hard adding components now...? by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    Just wait till we have add-ons that are 1/100,000 the width of a human hair!

    Now where did I put those molecular-tweezers???

  38. You ignorant slut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps it's an atomic stucture?

    --Anonymous Coward
    You have the wit of a cowpat.
    I shall spread you on my lawn.

    P.S. sod-off

    *-buy my reprint at amazon so I can feed myself. All my students left because I'm so full of me.

  39. Images to go with the article by los+furtive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Check out the pictures and graphics that IBM has made available.

    And let us not dwell on the fact that I submitted a better version of this article early in the morning with more links than the one they decided to go with(sulking ends now).

    --

    I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

  40. You seems mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one crystal consist from 1 molecula.
    Different elements have moleculas with different inner structer and contents. So, in a future, a molecula can be a transistor.

    Try to learn chemistry, pal...

    Sorry for English, its not native.

  41. ^ Mod Up ^ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to be the source of every insightful comment made thus far in this thread. Please keep up the good work.

  42. Re:Blacks, Caucasians, Indians by Scooter · · Score: 1

    and just what colour IS the sky on your planet?

  43. Universal Gates by SirJimbo · · Score: 1

    Someone pointed out that IBM just needs to create a similar AND gate, as anything can be made out of AND gates and Inverters. However, no one has mentioned that the same thing can be done with OR gates, as the NOR gate is a universal gate as well. In my opinion, its more of a pain to work with, but hey, whatever works for IBM is fine with me.

    "Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows him?"
    Obi-Wan Kenobi

  44. nanocomputer implant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imagine getting a nanocomputer made of six hundred and sixty six molecules implanted in your hand or forehead

  45. not the government by javaDragon · · Score: 1

    The government, changing every 4 years, doesn't care about you. But some private corporations and peuso-organizations (RIAA, MPAAA, BSA, etc) would be very interested in tracking people the worst way possible. You should worry about these, not about a useless "government" thingy.

    --
    -- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
  46. Think METRIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes i wish Napoleon had invaded the entire world.

  47. Molecule? So What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern science can make single polymer plastic molecules the size of my hand. It all depends on what molecule.

  48. Universal Bill by javaDragon · · Score: 1

    ... And guess what will people ask in the first place ?

    To install Windoze 2020 service pack 13 on a
    molecular computer...

    --
    -- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
  49. Number of the BEAST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This new technology uses carbon nanotubes. Carbon has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons.

    666

    That's the number of the Beast there, sonny.

  50. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scary stuff. This "invention" is public knowledge, imagine the inventions that are classified.

    Human cloning, mixing of animal and human DNA, and now this. The beast of the Bible can't be too far away.

  51. Chemistry Lesson by dragons_flight · · Score: 3, Informative

    As classically understood, molecules are fundamental chemical units composed of atoms in precise amounts, types and arrangements. Molecules can't be subdivided without changing their chemical properties.

    Crystals are not molecules because their constituents need not appear in precise proportions (a water molecule on the other hand is ALWAYS 2 hydrogen and one water), and because you can break them into chuncks that have identical intensive chemical properties. Crystals have basic units which are molecules or single atoms and combine to form the crystal lattice (often with trace impurties which are important). Crystals are chemcially bonded together, as are many things, but this does not make them molecules (according to the classical definition).

    Things like diamond, polymers, DNA, and nanotubes have come to challenge the bounds of what people label as molecules. Many people, news media, and some scientists have come to accept a broader conception of molecules as being any stable, complete (as in not attached to something), and strongly bonded (doesn't usually spontaneously disassociate) compound. Myself and others I know tend to consider this looser definition to be a foolish disregard for the important aspects of the previous definition.

    Knowing that what you are studying is the smallest unit with the properties you are interested in is a powerful piece of information. Similarly knowing that this basic unit requires a particular arrangement of certain atomic types grants you the keys to understanding it.

    As far as I'm concerned crystals are chemical compounds or chemical aggregates but not molecules. Same for polymers (unless the context makes it important to distinguish 40-unit from 41-unit and every other length of polymer, etc.). DNA is a molecule because every single arrangement is important to how it functions and no piece has the full chemical functionality of the whole. Nanotubes, on the face of it, seem to be polymers and thus not molecules (though I don't have enough depth in the matter to say for sure.)

    So we have the first logic process made out of a polymer, but it's not a specific molecule that does the job. I'm glad chemical bonds hold their tubes together and I'm glad they make our standard transistors possible, but chemical bonding != molecule.

    1. Re:Chemistry Lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a water molecule on the other hand is ALWAYS 2 hydrogen and one water"

      You mean Oxygen (h2o).

    2. Re:Chemistry Lesson by dragons_flight · · Score: 1

      "a water molecule on the other hand is ALWAYS 2 hydrogen and one water"

      You mean Oxygen (h2o).


      Yes, I do. Sorry about that, I need to sleep more.

    3. Re:Chemistry Lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .....problem for you: a polymer is a molecule of variable length. It can be formed into crystals or amorphous or liquids or any other phase convenient to the ambient conditions.

      chemical bonding==molecule
      Van der Waals forces etc !=molecule
      usually VdW forces encourage condensed phases like crystals or glasses

      just so we are clear.

      Nanotubes are funny though...they are objects of symmetry and limited flexibility which is a combination of the principle characteristics of both crystals and polymeric critters. They are essentially their own phase. In carbon you get graphites, fullerenes, diamond, tubes, gas, plasma.

  52. Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2

    What they have invented was a single molecule inverter, not a nor gate. a inverter or NOT gate if you want a different name, inverts the 1 to a 0 on the other side (from 5 v to 0 v in TTL). A NOR gate is a OR gate with an inverter on the output of the OR gate.

    --

    Gorkman

  53. Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. by lifeless · · Score: 1

    220 hairs wide - if you lay the gates side by side. I don't know how much space they do need between gates, but the width of a chip is going to more like 1/100000 * number of gate widths needed for layout * sqrt (22,000,000). So assuming they need 1 gates width on either side of each gate (for a total gap of 2 gates width between gates), the core of chip would be ~0.14 human hairs wide.

  54. Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. by davew2040 · · Score: 1

    Sure, if they lined them all up side-by-side in a straight line. Think more like a square 220^(1/2) = 14 human hairs to a side.

  55. Incompetent programmers always blame the tool by javaDragon · · Score: 1

    Actually, it is perfectly possible to make really fast applications using Java (I do)... You just have not be a dumb programmer.

    --
    -- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
    1. Re:Incompetent programmers always blame the tool by pkesel · · Score: 1

      Funny cars and top-fuel dragsters are fast. They get about one tenth of a mile to a gallon of fuel. Java is the same with CPU usage. Actually it's more like putting your Yugo on a bullet train. It'll go 300 MPH and it'll use no gas. If the JVM is written well and your machine is fast, you get a fast execution. It really doesnt' make much difference what you're capable of.

      Java epitomizes lazy programmers. If you want your code fast and efficient, write your own memory management and storage structures. Write your own threading. I'm guessing you'll be compiling and linking it, not running ing a virtual machine.

      And yes, I'm a Java developer. But only after almost 10 years of C/C++.

      --
      - Sig this!
  56. Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. by Metodius · · Score: 1


    I think the great achievement is represented by the _potential_ that carbon nanotubes have in miniaturisation. For the moment the lenght of the
    transistor's chanel is 250nm which is in range of today's technology - 180-130 nm.

  57. Re:Blacks, Caucasians, Indians by Ojamin · · Score: 1

    What have you leaned today? Well I leaned on a car and I also leanded on a counter. Some things that I have LEARNED is that teachers are really great people

  58. In a related story... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    Three fourths of NASDAQ listed corporations announced single molecule revenues for the third quarter. Analysts insist that such predictions are hardly in good faith, and that the majority will be lucky to turn revenues amounting even to a single quark. Wall Street bravely marches on, into this blossoming nano-economy.

  59. Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. by darkwhite · · Score: 1

    Plus, the transistors are stacked in many layers. Minus, you need a lot of space for layout and connectors, and probably some for heat dissipation.

    --

    [an error occurred while processing this directive]
  60. 1/100,000 is probably incorrect by Asparfame · · Score: 1
    A hair is usually about 40 microns is diameter (that would be 40 millionths of a meter). I doubt validity of the claim that the inverter is 1/100,000th of this width.1/100,000 of 40 microns is 4 angstroms (4 E -10 meters). An average atom's radius is about 1 angstrom. Are they claiming that the inverter is 4 atoms wide?


    I doubt that in the extreme. 40 atoms I might believe - perhaps some journalist made a typo / miscaluation / misquote and added an extra zero to 10,000.


    As the saying goes, "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you read."

    --

    There's no reason for a sig here.

  61. Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait till the day I can crack RC5 on my cell phone.


    You could crack RC5 now on a cell phone. Oh, you meant fast? You can still crack RC5 now on a cell phone. Oh you meant with large keys? Well, no matter what happens to the size of technology you're not going to crack RC5 of a sufficient key length without quantum computing. Remember, cracking RC5 is an exponential thing, and it's unbounded. Even if the size of processors decreases exponentially (which it doesn't), it's still bounded (think planck length).

  62. ?? by Guignol · · Score: 1

    Well, you're traveling along your path without "jumping" blablabla,
    so you have P(t) your position on the path at time t, so that P(0)=A and P(T)=B (it took T hours, (T>1 because (B-A)>v miles) to get from A to B)
    So let's call F(t) the function that gives you at any time (in hours) the distance you are going to travel the next hour according to the trajectory P.
    Clearly, F is continuous on [0, T-1] because P is continous on [0,T] and F(t) is P(t+1)-P(t)
    F could be always equal to v (v=(B-A)/T).
    It would mean your speed is constant during the travel and is v, so that at any time, you are going to travel v miles the next hour.
    Clearly, F can't be always less than v, because then your average speed would obviously be less than v.
    Also, F can't be always greater than v, because then, your average speed would obviously be greater than v.
    So, either F(t)=v either we have 2 instants t0 and t1 (t0
    F(t0)>v and F(t1)v
    Since F is continuous on [t0, t1] there is a value t, to
    So who is that Joe Einstein you're talking about ?
    Anyway, I understand your anology, but I don't get your whole point (seems that you wanted to say several things at once or I'm just too tired)

  63. :) by Guignol · · Score: 1

    Yes...
    it is:
    we have to instants to and t1 (to lt t1) and to and t1 within [0,T-1]
    and with
    F(t0) gt v and F(t1) lt v
    or
    F(t0) lt v and F(t1) gt v
    so, since F is continuous on [t0,t1] there is a value t, t0 lt t lt t1 such that F(t)=v.
    So, F(t)=v has at least one solution within [0,T-1] and the question is thus answered.
    blablabla....

  64. Re:big fuck-de-do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah... and my shit floats

  65. Re:1/100,000 is probably incorrect - follow up by Asparfame · · Score: 1

    Just as a follow up to my theory, I looked at the actual paper (available here: http://pubs.acs.org/journals/nalefd/asap/pdf/nl015 606f.pdf ), and though I don't have the patience to actually read it, one of the diagrams shows the nanotobe in the order of 50 nm, about a hundred times bigger than the yahoo's "1/100,000 of a human hair". Damn sensationalists.

    --

    There's no reason for a sig here.

  66. A day for being pissed off, it seems. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Argh!

    The choreographed pace at which they're releasing this 'new' tech is such a stupid joke.

    Read a few headlines down, (or up), where they're talking about successes in neuron/computer engineering techniques.

    Oh, goody.

    You do realize the League of Evil will require people to plug their brains in directly at some point? And the morons who suck up the Cyberpunk daydream where this is actually something desirable, (what? There are idiots like that present on Slashdot? Oh my!), are being used to buffer and in fact sell this horror to the world?

    Yep. Sell it to the tech-heads, and you shape the world. The tech-heads have almost all the social muscle these days and not even they seem to fully realize it.

    Why do you think it's so miserable to be alive if you live life as you have all been told? That is, working 8:00 to 6:00 jobs. Sucking up social programming which serves to render impotent relationships, one of the most powerful forces of stability and good energy; now perverted into over-sexed, short term, disappointing & miserable transactions. Thanks to James Cameron, the perfect boyfriend must now die of hypothermia in the North Atlantic, for crying out loud!

    We've been programmed to eat unhealthy food with too many chemicals. Jeezus! Bread with everything. (There's almost no worse food combo out there!) Leading to poor health and further misery.

    Enter the tech-heads.

    Why do you think there have been so many episodes of Star Trek made with Holodeck fantasies? Do you think the Forces of Evil would allow such a virtuous show as Star Trek to exist if it wasn't the carrier for some toxin?

    Grr.

    Is nobody tuned into the same station as me? Am I the only one who can see this shit? Is nobody else scared out of their freeking minds? (Well, actually I'm not really all that scared; I'd describe my reaction as being something more akin to a fascination on an anthropological level. Watching exactly how the end of the world arrives is possibly the most amazing thing I'll ever see.)

    Still, I can't believe that people are going to actually line up to be the first to plug their brains into the Matrix. Man! Now that is a sell job!

    I mean, isn't face recognition in Borders Books already creepy enough? No! People want Microsoft and Echelon and **AMERICA** in their heads at night when they sleep! Digitize awareness! With everybody plugged into 'Friends' and 'Ally-McBeal,' nobody will even notice, much less rebel when the sky falls.

    Part of me almost hopes that somebody does drop a vial by accident and wipes out 5.9 billion people on this globe. I'd almost rather take my chances at being one of the lucky survivors than continue watching this bullshit parade and the naivete of all the silly viewers.


    -Fantastic Lad. The Craziest Fuck In ANY Room!


    P.S. Most artists and media producers don't even realize where their ideas come from. Population control doesn't happen on a surface level anymore. Hasn't for a long, long time.

    1. Re:A day for being pissed off, it seems. . . by pkesel · · Score: 1

      Is nobody tuned into the same station as me?

      You are correct. No one else is tuned in. I'm thinking you've had a bit of alcohol in your surrogate.

      --
      - Sig this!
    2. Re:A day for being pissed off, it seems. . . by HardwareLust · · Score: 1
      What, do the stupid fscking moderators need to be hit upside the head to realize this is a large and hideous *troll*, or even (gasp!) *flamebait*? And, not even a very clever one at that considering the context it's in? What's wrong with you people?

      Note to moderators: Wake the fuck up!

      Of course, you'll mod this down to -1 in about a nanosecond or two, so why do I bother?

      --
      ...not that I'm a pirate.. Hell I've never even fired a cannon. - oldwolf13
  67. Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If each gate is the size of approximately 1/100,000th the width of a human hair. A 22 million transitors chip would fit into a line that is 220 human hair wide, or a square that is 1/20th the width of a human hair.

  68. same ol stuff by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

    Not to detract from there accomplishment, I am sure they really did do it if they said they did it and this is really exciting stuff.
    But IBM is not unaccustom to doing this sort of press release simply for the publicity of it.
    I seem to remember a press release (which they had to buy add space to get it published I guess) back in the early 90's. 92 or 93 maybe. They claimed to have created the worlds first 1024 bit cpu.
    I wouldnt suggest they are building this stuff for PR. I am just saying that is the purpose of the press release (just like most articles of this sort). Oh ya, someones cool project at IBM needs to keep getting funding of course.
    Just dont assume it will be useable for anything practicle in OUR lifetime.
    It took 20 years to get from 8 bit to 64 bit. And most of us use 32 bit just like we did 10 years ago.(this refers to commodity hardware, not the big iron).
    Ah screw it.Never mind. Its cool stuff no matter what the press geeks do with it.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    1. Re:same ol stuff by kireK · · Score: 1

      Even better is that while IBM might be the first, it will be companies like Sun that make it work for everyone. Look at 64bit CPUs. All of Sun's servers re 64bit, and IBM still pushes out 32bit machines as "low end" RISC machines.

  69. Re:Switch time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Switch time is godlike
    on the nano scale you get responses on the molecular time scale which is femtoseconds:)
    10^-15

  70. l00k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    l00k acr0ss the h0r1zon and s33 a111 th3 myst1ca1 tr011z

    Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

  71. diode laser drivers by dotslashdotdot · · Score: 1

    I see new devices with more easily controlled parasitic capacitance and inductance because of the dimensions of carbon nanotubes. This will be good for high frequency, high power applications as well as logic circuitry. Carbon nanotubes "want" to be certain sizes depending on the number of carbon atoms in a ring of the tube and the presence of dopants like boron or potassium. These things might make good diode laser drivers. Focused arrays of laser diodes could be an interesting way to nano-manipulate colloidal materials or proteins. Follow the links from here on Optical Tweezers.

    --
    It is now time to flip off your computer.
  72. Tech Support by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    So now I need to call a quantum physicist to get tech support... great....

  73. "voltage inverter?" by Lally+Singh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Call it what it is, a NOT gate.

    --
    Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
  74. someone forgot to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    add YHBT! to the post.

    Signed JerryMeander
    "Never take your medicine, it's poison designed to control your brain"

  75. Ahh. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Ha! But now I've planted the seed for a shit-tree in your brain.

    Thank me later when you wake up.


    -Fantastic Lad

  76. How do "holes" carry current? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    How do "holes" move? When a hole moves, is it not actually an electron moving from one place to another -- leaving a new hole in the place where it left, and filling the hole in the place where it ends up?

    If so, I don't see the difference between electrons carrying current and holes carrying current.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:How do "holes" carry current? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holes per se do not move. The phenomenon physically is as you explained it, electrons moving into a hole and creating one from where they left. It's simply a convenient engineering fiction (and an accurate model, fortunately) to demonstrate charge flow and distribution in semiconducting materials.