Slashdot Mirror


Cascading Molecules Drive IBM's Smallest Computer

Benoit Fries writes "EE Times reports that IBM researchers have created a simple computation engine that's more than 250,000 times smaller than the most advanced silicon circuitry. Called the world's smallest computer, the system relies on a 'molecular cascade' that pushes a handful of carbon monoxide molecules across a copper surface to perform digital logic functions. 'Even if CMOS density follows Moore's Law for 40 more years, molecular cascades are still going to be smaller,' they said."

218 comments

  1. Think Smarter - new IBM motto by Dark+Coder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think IBM is going off the wrong direction in tackling Moore's Law.

    We should be attempting massive parallelism instead of packing more logic per area.

    Isn't that how our brain works?

    1. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How bout this...do both. Smaller computers can only be a good thing

    2. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by joto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And exactly how will you achieve massive parallelism without packing more logic per area? Making computers as big as houses again is not the answer.

    3. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by Usquebaugh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes but it would make me feel important. God how I loved room fulls of racks with lights and tapes and switches. I could stroll through my domain and feel like a king.

      Now I have a tiny cube with a PC connected by ethernet to a tiny server no bigger than a chopping cart. AND we still don't get any more done than we did back in the day.

    4. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      yeah we do now we get quake on machines instead of nethack

    5. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by digitalsushi · · Score: 2

      this is an interesting article that partially deals with how the brain works in a manner similar to what you suggest. It's way out there but it's an interesting angle, at least.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    6. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by LittleBigScript · · Score: 1

      Smaller, yes. Slower...no
      The article at the very end mentions the limitations of the technology.

      Send all mail to Dungeons@Moria.net

    7. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by bmwm3nut · · Score: 5, Interesting

      actually smaller and slower is fine. i read a great article by richard feynman (i believe it's in the 'feynman lectures on computing' series). where he was talking about the theromodynamics of computation. if we slow down the computers and use much less voltage then we can get away with using a lot less power. with the added savings in power we can use more processors in parallel. it turns out that the way everything scales, you get more speed out of parallel processors and use less power. i don't remember all the arguements, it's been a couple of years since i read it, but if you find the book it's definately worth reading.

    8. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      AND we still don't get any more done than we did back in the day.

      yeah, but that's only becuase as the power and availibility of computing technology has improved over the years, the power and availability of video game technology has improved at exactly the same rate

    9. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by lizzardo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I agree. Computers haven't been the same since they got rid of the blinking lights. I can live without the reels of tape, but without the blinking lights, how can I tell that anything is happening?

      lizzardo

    10. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your link started out interesting, but my bullshittometer slowly rose steadily as I read on. The Universe may be like a hologram of sorts, however, a projection can't alter itself; therefore, I still don't swallow the paranormal jazz towards the end of the article.

    11. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by fruey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read this:-

      Unbounding the Future: the Nanotechnology Revolution

      Eric Drexler and Chris Peterson, with Gayle Pergamit William Morrow and Company, Inc.

      I don't know where I downloaded it from, but it's a free ebook (.DOC format) download.

      I can send you it in PDF if you're interested enough and contact me.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    12. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by jejones · · Score: 2

      For all I know IBM may have people working on massive parallelism--but small and efficient is good whether we get good at parallelism or not. At the very least you're going to want small (and energy efficient) hardware to put together that mondo Beowulf cluster, aren't you?

    13. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by giminy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes but it would make me feel important. God how I loved room fulls of racks with lights and tapes and switches. I could stroll through my domain and feel like a king.

      Now I have a tiny cube with a PC connected by ethernet to a tiny server no bigger than a chopping cart. AND we still don't get any more done than we did back in the day.


      He has a point.

      An excercise: Make a graph of average computer size versus average computer nerd's salary. Notice that they both spiral ever-downwards? Maybe the problem is that, as computers get small, the Boss thinks they're simple and won't pay people as much to fix them. Maybe if computers got really huge again, we could scare our employers with some crazy Scotty-talk and demand more money for maintaining the beasts.

      Hey, it could happen...

      --
      The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    14. Re:Think Smarter - new IBM motto by doc_side · · Score: 1



      I read the article as well, and I am curious about the science that it uses to push its mystical slant. Maybe a link to something that was just about the science would have been more palletable to the slashdot crowd. After filtering out the BS, I can say that I at least find the possibility of this scientific theory at the very least intriguing.

      Now, as to the reference within the article refering to the universe being a hologram, I find that a nice model of what is really happening. Please though, do not confuse the model with the reality. Useing the hologram analogy in your logical counter-argument, may be flawed in and of itself. Saying that one thing might be wrong means the whole thing is wrong may need some deeper reflection. Anyways, just think of it as an example for non physicists such as myself, to understand a more technical concept.

  2. Pfft.... by ryanvm · · Score: 5, Funny

    'Even if CMOS density follows Moore's Law for 40 more years, molecular cascades are still going to be smaller'

    Pfft - if I had a nickel for every time I heard that...

    1. Re:Pfft.... by nebenfun · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      DAMN!
      did slashdot already repost that?
      I must have blinked.
      nbfn

    2. Re:Pfft.... by Ezubaric · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Pfft - if I had a nickel for every time I heard that...

      Gordon Moore (of Intel) does ...

      --

      ----------
      I am an expert in electricity. My father held the chair of applied electricity at the state prision.
  3. It had to be said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Image a beowulf cluster of those.

    1. Re:It had to be said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would probably stil be too small to see.

  4. Also just released.... by m.lemur · · Score: 5, Funny

    Counter Strike for mice.

    1. Re:Also just released.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      never played de_rats?

  5. What? by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1

    Someone care to explain why we won't all die from radiation poisoning with this new 'computing' technology?

    What next, the half life of u-232 used to do simply logic functions? GEEZ!

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, what radiation poisoning? Quantum doesn't mean radiation. And plus I get more monoxide just breathing the air.

    2. Re:What? by joto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because it is not radioactive.

  6. Just what we need! by Drunken+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Carbon monoxide? Carcinogenic hard drives! I was worried about my computer being too safe.

    --
    Have you been stalked by Seth today?
    1. Re:Just what we need! by joto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, a few billion CO molecules are really going to kill you. In this test, it was probably more in the range of hundreds. A gram of CO is about 21499952344431130617588 molecules. I think you should be more worried about the stuff in current computers...

    2. Re:Just what we need! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hard drive manufacture is already carcinogenic, as it involves multiple washes with solvents with known carcinogenic activity (e.g. xylene). WiReD had a story about this several issues ago (late last year? if you search their website i'm sure you'd find it in the archives; specifically mentioned was IBM's HD plants which had cancer incidences several sigma higher than normal in their workforce).

    3. Re:Just what we need! by operagost · · Score: 2

      In other news today, IBM's carbon monoxide computer was deemed illegal under the Kyoto treaty.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Just what we need! by jamespharaoh · · Score: 1

      A gram of CO is about 21499952344431130617588 molecules.

      Give or take a couple of course...

  7. Hmm by superdan2k · · Score: 4, Funny

    So if the power goes out, half the city asphixiates, right? :-)

    --
    blog |
    1. Re:Hmm by joto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, only if your city is about the size of something you can only see in a microscope, and the computer is really large and complex, and you somehow manages to get the CO-molecules off the copper plate by cutting the power.

    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, only if your city is about the size of something you can only see in a microscope, and the computer is really large and complex

      oh, well i'm fucked then.

  8. Benchmarks please by bravehamster · · Score: 5, Funny
    This thing is useless to me until I know how FPS's it can get in Q3A. Or at least tell me how many LoC's* it can alphabetize, give me something! Your size comparisons are meaningless to me.


    *LoC == Standard metric unit of information (Library of Congress). Size of unit varies from year to year.

    --
    ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
    1. Re:Benchmarks please by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your size comparisons are meaningless to me.
      *LoC == Standard metric unit of information (Library of Congress). Size of unit varies from year to year.


      Exactly! did you also notice...

      so small that 190 billion could fit atop a standard pencil-top eraser 7mm (about 1/4-inch) in diameter.

      pencil-top eraser?!? What the hell kind of unit is that? Everyone knows that the standard units of area are football fields, US states, and obscure counties! I want to know how many of these things would would fit in one Azerbaijan!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:Benchmarks please by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      LoCs are annoying for the same reason as SpecInt... the aforementioned changing from year to year. You look at marketing literature for a 24 processor SGI Challenge XL and it's in, say, SpecInt94, and then you look at a 8 processor Xeon or something and it's SpecInt98 or whatever... For chrissake pick some reasonable unit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Computing model by fleppir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Niiice. This means we don't have to learn new calculus to program assembly and STILL experience the computing power of single atoms. Good. My head hurts when thinking about sets AND super-sets at the same time (read, quantum computing)

    --
    I am the Barber of Seville.
    1. Re:Computing model by wmspringer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno..they may be down to computing with molecules, but quantum computers use yet smaller particles, and are probably faster. Why have ten billion teeny atoms solving a problem in a couple seconds, when you can have one molecule solve the problem all possible ways in less time?

    2. Re:Computing model by russellh · · Score: 1

      I heard they just implemented a quantum NOT operation. That puts quantum computing at what, 1940? Maybe by 2010 they'll have quantum drum storage. Anyone know if Mel is still around?

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    3. Re:Computing model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait until the chips get small enough to integrate with my brain so I never have to put effort into math again.

  10. big deal by Zod000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'Even if CMOS density follows Moore's Law for 40 more years, molecular cascades are still going to be smaller,'

    Chances are it'll be more than 40 years until they could make an actual product with this technology so I don't think that I'm going to hold off on getting that new conventional cpu quite yet

    --
    People seem much brighter once you light them on fire.
  11. real life applications? by m.lemur · · Score: 2

    Excuse my ignorance, but what are the real life applications of this technology?

    I'm guessing medicine, but does anyone have any good ideas on how to use it?

    1. Re:real life applications? by TGK · · Score: 2

      I could be completely wrong, but this sounds a little like a primitive ancestor of the kind of "Rod Logic" system Neil Stevenson describes in "Diamond Age"

      Just a thought.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    2. Re:real life applications? by Usquebaugh · · Score: 2

      Hmm,
      it's called research there maybe no application for it. You are also extremely ignorant if you cannot gues what a an array of logic gates might be used for.

      I guess the PC has somewhat lowered the bar.

    3. Re:real life applications? by m.lemur · · Score: 1

      "Ignorant" is one of my middle names :)

      "Lazy" is another one.

    4. Re:real life applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Because everyone that reads /. must be a computer engineer. No chance that perhaps they might be reading this to try and increase their knowledge level *at all*.

      get the fuck off your soap box.

    5. Re:real life applications? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Astronauts could do their taxes with it.

    6. Re:real life applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and yes, I modded you up that way because I have a sense of humor.

    7. Re:real life applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nevermind. I guess anonymous posting undid my "informative" mod. Crap.

    8. Re:real life applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoulda logged out first.

  12. Size is great and all... by RyMon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    but what about the speed?

    "The slow operation of the gates -- some required seconds to settle -- underscores the fact that the work was part of a research project."

    You pretty much have your choice of one chip that does something 250,000 times in a second, or 250,000 chips that do one thing each a second... Until they can speed these things up, they're more of a curiosity than a useful technology.

    1. Re:Size is great and all... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am sure they said the same thing when the Univac was invented.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Size is great and all... by Usquebaugh · · Score: 3, Funny

      No they said "so what if it costs $1m you get the source to the OS"

    3. Re:Size is great and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually it was the other way around. Its speed was phenomenal at the time, but the size and cost were prohibitive.

      In any case, it has little bearing on the validity of the original poster's point. A CPU operating at 1Hz is useless unless it is massively parallel. It is also worth noting that you would need several billion of these CPUs in parallel just to equal one of todays processors. So, until they can make it go several billion times faster (not an exageration btw) it is just an interesting experiment.

    4. Re:Size is great and all... by trixillion · · Score: 1

      A CPU operating at 1Hz is useless unless it is massively parallel.

      You mean, like your brain?

    5. Re:Size is great and all... by SWPadnos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well...

      Applying a little physics (but not too much, since I don't have the references or the desire/ability to go through the really rough calculations :) :

      The "average" air molecule travels at about 300 meters/sec at room temperature. This speed is a multiple of the temperature T, divided by the mass m of the molecule - E=3/2kT=1/2 mv^2 (so CO is a little faster than average, since Carbon is lighter than Oxygen or Nitrogen)

      So, if they can build room temperature versions of this (the sample was at 4-10 K), and the size remains about the same (17nm across), and the molecules travel say half their speed in atmosphere, and the computational nodes get "recharged" as fast as they calculate, then the thing would be able to go at about 4.4 GHz.

      Not too bad, actually.

      Probably within an order of magnitude, at least (ie, wrong :)

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    6. Re:Size is great and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The human brain operates at about 40hz optimally, and some neurons can switch at up to 1000 times per second.

    7. Re:Size is great and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. Ususally, scientific discoveries are not only immediately applicable but marketable as well.

    8. Re:Size is great and all... by starman97 · · Score: 2

      It's pretty fast when you consider that the whole thing is cooled to about 2-4K .

      --
      Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
    9. Re:Size is great and all... by xercist · · Score: 2

      Hoold on there, so you're saying that to overclock this machine, all you'd have to do is heat it up?

      Oh, the irony

      --

      --
      grep "xercist" /dev/random ...you'll find me in there someday
    10. Re:Size is great and all... by SablKnight · · Score: 1

      Except, unfortunately, the cascade can't be reset. If you look at the IBM article (not the EET one, which made me really curious about this fact):

      "Since there is no reset mechanism, these molecule cascades can only perform a calculation once. While these initial cascades rely on the motion of a molecule, Eigler envisions that it should be possible to make nanometer-scale cascades using other fundamental interactions, such as electron spin. Such cascades may also be resettable, allowing repeated calculations, similar to ordinary computer circuitry."

      So, interesting new idea, very very small, but requires several rooms of equipment to reset... or a pay-per-computing model! Load a supply of preset AND, OR, XOR, NOT, and other simple gate dust into special reservoirs on your processor, new ones loaded automatically. Processors would sell like razor handles!

      -SablKnight

  13. Where are all the servers? by kjd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nooo!!! You're stepping on them!!!

    1. Re:Where are all the servers? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      (Variation)

      "I would like to present our newest line of ser...ah...Ahh...CHOOOOO!......Fuck!"

  14. Someone had to say it... by jonman_d · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it!

    That was so unexpected.....yeah, right.

    1. Re:Someone had to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do women tell you that a lot?

      Wait, this is slashdot....what women?

      For future reference:
      Its not the size that matters, its how you use it. Of course it matters a lot less how you use it, if its big.

  15. CO in this application will be safe by abhinavnath · · Score: 5, Informative

    All those people worrying about asphyxiating on carbon monoxide...

    CO binds very tightly to metallic ligands such as copper. The Carbon atom has an unbound lone pair of electrons, that are donated to the metal's d-electron shell. Additionally the CO molecule creates a pi-back-bonding system with the metal center, making the complex even more stable.

    Upshot: the CO is not going to spontaneously leak off the chip into your atmosphere. In any case, I doubt that such logic circuits would contain sufficient carbon monoxide to pose a health threat.

    (Interesting side note: CO asphyxiates you by binding very tightly to the iron in hemoglobin in your blood, much more tightly than oxygen can. IIRC, however, CO will preferentially bind to copper over Fe.)

    --
    My other sig is also a .Porsche
    1. Re:CO in this application will be safe by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Interesting
      (Interesting side note: CO asphyxiates you by binding very tightly to the iron in hemoglobin in your blood, much more tightly than oxygen can. IIRC, however, CO will preferentially bind to copper over Fe.)
      So this is why octopuses (octopii???) are very sensitive to outboard-engine exhaust: their blood doesn't have hemoglobine, but the copper-based equivalent.
    2. Re:CO in this application will be safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is correct, CO bonds to the blood about 300 times stronger than O2. Thats why if you get CO poisoning they may put you in a hyperbolic chamber at the hospital (if they happen to have one) and why there isn't much we EMT's can do for CO poisoning. Even on 100% O2 it will still take hours for your blood to get rid of the CO

    3. Re:CO in this application will be safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting, actually, several metals are found in hemo-morphic compounds. IIRC crabs used Cu as well, and something else used Mn.

    4. Re:CO in this application will be safe by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

      No, they're cephalopods.

    5. Re:CO in this application will be safe by Kenneth+Stephen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If my memory serves me right, an alternative term is "chelate" compounds. And I believe its Magnesium - not Manganese that is present in chlorophyll.

      --

      There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.

    6. Re:CO in this application will be safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually Mn often replaces Mg in metal-binding sites, they have a pretty similar radius and bonding affinity.

      For example, the Mg in the Cytochrome C Oxidase of Paracoccus Denhas been shown to sometimes be substituted by Mn.
      (see Iwata et al, Nature, 24 august 1995)

  16. The first person... by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Funny

    The first person who makes a Star Trek joke about Cascading Failure gets shot.

    1. Re:The first person... by Strick-9 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The first person who makes a Star Trek joke about Cascading Failure gets shot.

      That would be you, right?

    2. Re:The first person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok # # #

    3. Re:The first person... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      <homer>
      Doh!
      <\homer>

    4. Re:The first person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do resonance cascades from Halflife count. My god Freeman!!! What are you doing!?!?

    5. Re:The first person... by WickedChicken · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Deus Ex!

      --
      "It's even worse if you're locked into a proprietary operating system." -http://www.wehavethewayout.com/scale.asp?rew=0
  17. 'Exceedingly Slow' Beowulf Cluster? by Chromal · · Score: 3, Informative

    Aw, I was almost getting excited as I read the article. This technology appears to be a long way from being a post-silicon circuit alternative for CPUs.

    It's "exceedingly slow," according to the article. Still, maybe some kind of niche exists for it to be useful. Then again, maybe they'll implement the NOT gate and get this puppy running near the frequency of 500nm light or something.

    I'd be excited by that. :)

    1. Re:'Exceedingly Slow' Beowulf Cluster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Aw, I was almost getting excited as I read the article. This technology appears to be a long way from being a post-silicon circuit alternative for CPUs.

      I dunno, seeing as it was just a few scant years ago that the people working on this technology were using it to build an abacus, they seem to be moving at a pretty fast clip to me.

      I mean, going from Abacus to an "exceedingly slow" turing-complete device the first time around took us, what, 3000 years?

      So if they keep going at their current rate of progress, they should have little molecular hardware companies running around on their desktops and unethically building little molecular speed tricks into their little molecular video cards so that they can trick a little molecular version of Quake 3 into appearing to give better benchmarks.. by, like, i don't know, monday. Hell, their Little Molecular Computation department will have probably gotten around to inventing the concept of molecular-scale Vaporware by the time i write these words.

    2. Re:'Exceedingly Slow' Beowulf Cluster? by joto · · Score: 2

      Well, I wouldn't call a 3-sorter Turing complete. Or to be more presise: this is not a computer yet!

    3. Re:'Exceedingly Slow' Beowulf Cluster? by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      Actually, doesn't this sound like a tiny little abacus? ....that pushes a handful of carbon monoxide molecules across a copper surface....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  18. size ain't everything by sssmashy · · Score: 5, Funny
    The slow operation of the gates -- some required seconds to settle -- underscores the fact that the work was part of a research project. "We have made extraordinarily small, albeit exceedingly slow, logic circuits," Heinrich said.

    250,000 times smaller than the most advanced silicon circuitry. Of course, it's also 250,000,000 times slower. I'm guessing there won't be molecular cascade chips in my PC anytime soon, unless I have a lot of free time...

  19. In other news... by CySurflex · · Score: 5, Funny

    LOS ANGELES 6:39PM PST - The American Assocation of Midgets issued a press release stating "finally a computer company is aligned with our cause. We, the worlds smallest people have been waiting for decades for the worlds smallest computer."

    1. Re:In other news... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      The American Assocation of Midgets issued a press release stating "finally a computer company is aligned with our cause...

      I don't know if they really want this. Look:

      the system relies on a 'molecular cascade' that pushes a handful of carbon monoxide molecules across a copper surface to perform digital logic functions.

      It is miniture *slavery*. A bunch of cascade dudes bully a "handful" of carbon molecules by pushing them around and dragging them across the copper floor, forcing them to perform functions.

      Does not sound like Dwarf Paradise to me.

    2. Re:In other news... by syo · · Score: 1

      Erm...hasn't there *always* been a "world's smallest computer"...since "smallest" is a relative measurement.

      At the time, the Harvard Mark I was the smallest computer...

      Cheers
      Sean

  20. This is what you get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...when you put an infinite amount of tiny monkeys to work in an infinite amount of tiny labs.

  21. hmmm... quantum effects by lingqi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Somebody correct me if I am getting this whole thing wrong, but AFAIK, when you go down to molecular levels, due to the uncertainty principle, sometimes the dominos will not fall as you predict, becauese either
    1) they were already fallen you just didn't know, or
    2) statistically speaking there is a much higher chance for "spontaneous reverse-thermodynamics" on a molecular level.

    what i mean is that while macroscopically speaking, the universe is headed toward higher entropy, molecularly speaking, it's not necessarily so; The example commonly given is that you can drop and shatter an egg, or an shattered egg can come together, absorbing the sound waves etc and rise back into your hand. the latter will not (or, has completely ignorable probability of) happening, but as you and the egg gets smaller, the chance of this ignorable probability becomes less so.

    hence, a molecular computer has the probability of operating "faultily" because of the laws of thermodynamics is not followed 100%. this is currently overcome by the thousands / millions of electrons we send over gates, probabilistically speaking they still behave on a macro level, but a molecular computer has no such luxury.

    i mean, even there was only a minute chance that one molecule will go backwards as what we intended -- counting up the billions of calculations per second we expect from each chip, and the number of chips out there, and then the number of seconds / days / monthes / years they are expected to operate, the chance of error is almost inevitable. some serious redundancy / self-healing hardware / software might need to be invented.

    i am just blabbing, though. like i said: i am no molecular physicist, so if there are some here, please comment.

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by shirameroix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the article it was said that 10,000 hops were executed, and in that time, no noticeable errors were seen. Call me crazy, but thats a lot of hops and no error to speak of. I thought it was also interesting how IBM said that the tests were performed at 4k. I dont know about you, but molecules move pretty freakin slow at that temperature. Like the article said, boost the temp, and the speed of the circuit should increase as well. This may not be as slow is the EE times article made it out to be.

    2. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2

      So far, the molecular cascades have a perfect operational record, Heinrich said. "We have seen over 10,000 of these hops and we have never seen an incorrect one," he said. In fact, it was this incredible reliability of the cascade that first attracted Heinrich to invent the domino code.

    3. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by Compuser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, as someone doing stm research I think
      I am qualified to answer. Quantum uncertainty
      isn't THE problem in this case. You are dealing
      with huge atoms like copper and even huger
      system like CO. They aren't exactly classical
      at this scale but they aren't going to tunnel
      out either. Especially since this research was
      done at or below 4K (Don only has low temp.
      microscope in the lab). At that temperature stuff
      doesn't like to go anywhere.
      The real limitations here are:
      a. STM is slow. In this case STM is used to
      manipulate individual atoms so it will be hard to
      make this much faster than it is already.
      b. STM tips sometimes change. They are usually
      atomically sharp so the probability of one atom
      moving is not altogether small. Not a big deal
      in research but may not be reliable enough for
      production.
      c. Copper or any other surface cannot be made
      entirely free of defects. This limits the size of
      circuits you can build. I will be amazed if this
      technology scales at all (even by one order of
      magnitude).
      d. Did I mention this will only work so reliably
      at low temperature? You have heard of crazy guys
      cooling their OC'ed rigs with liquid nitrogen...
      Well, this is waaaay colder than that.

      All that said, this is very impressive work as far
      as research goes.

    4. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by naasking · · Score: 2

      Current error rates for memory cells are on the order of 10e-6 to 10e-9 if I recall correctly. 10,000 is not good enough.

    5. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by sam_nead · · Score: 2, Funny
      ... huge atoms...

      Dude, you've got to get out more. :)

    6. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by Dragon213 · · Score: 1

      10e-6 = 1,000,000
      10e-9 = 1,000,000,000

      10,000 = 10e-4

      So if they're already experiencing greater than 10e-4 computations without error, give them a little time to do more experiments. We might find that the molecular computations have an error rate of 10e-15 or greater (10e-15 = 1,000,000,000,000,000)....
      Remember, this research works very slowly for now. Maybe they haven't had the time to do that many tests..

      Would you want to move at -452.5 deg F? (4K = -452.5F, -269.1C)

      --
      --CypherDragon
    7. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by teaserX · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Close. I think you mean "quantum level" or "sub-atomic level". On a molecular scale things still follow the laws of classical physics.
      <scold>

      Go look up the difference between "quantum" and "molecular" levels and start your post over.

      </scold>
      --
      We really need your help
      http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
    8. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by Compuser · · Score: 1

      It's not uncommon to think like that in this field.
      Especially since hydrogen has been shown to
      tunnel along a metal surface. So by comparison,
      copper is huge.

    9. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your text will wrap on its own, you just need to believe. :)

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=39074&cid=41 79 598
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=40209&cid =4284 691
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38049&cid =4078 710
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=37587&cid =4029 192

    10. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by morie · · Score: 2

      You can not determine an error rate untill you have at least 2 errors. More measurements would be a lot better of course. They have none in 10.000. Could still be a very good errorrate...

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    11. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by naasking · · Score: 2

      Is there an english version of the website in your sig?

    12. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite the same topic here, but..

      "the universe is headed toward higher entropy, molecularly speaking, it's not necessarily so; The example commonly given is that you can drop and shatter an egg, or an shattered egg can come together, absorbing the sound waves etc and rise back into your hand. the latter will not (or, has completely ignorable probability of) happening, but as you and the egg gets smaller, the chance of this ignorable probability becomes less so."

      One hears this "Universe tends toward entropy" argument a lot, it appears to have become fashionable now even amongst the public. But there is an obvious counter-example that proves this wrong: the fact that we exist.

      For the last 4 billion years, at least in THIS part of the Universe, the Universe has been tending toward ever and ever more order, "creating ever and ever more eggs", if you like. The particles on Earth have been arranging in arrangments with gradually less and less entropy. And the complexity of the "order" is now getting to the point where it is spreading off this planet and out into the surrounding space in the galaxy. If things continue, it may spread to many of the surrounding stars, and may even spread to huge sections of the galaxy.

      You can say, "but thats not the universe, thats US *against* the universe". But we are just PART of the Universe. We are not just beings living *inside* this thing called the universe. We are physically just another part of it. Hence, the universe DOES generate "order". We are living proof. The universe has, at least over here, created living organic things with brains, created telecommunications infrastructure, internet, spaceships, microchips etc etc.

    13. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you may have missed his point. Generally, we make purely STATISTICAL assumptions of reliability based on the probabilities of failure of each individual element in a very much larger whole.

      Take the old problem of error detection/correction on computer networks. The question arises, how can you prove that a file transmitted from one computer to another was transmitted correctly? The answer is, you CANNOT. This fact remains, no matter how much error detection and/or correction you use, and no matter what the underlying physical communication technology used is. For any error detection code used on a piece of data, say a single byte, there exists a possibility that enough bits could be transmitted incorrectly that the error detection code sees it as a valid byte. Sure, you could do CRC tests on the entire file too, but it is also possible (a) that there is an undetected bit error when transmitting the CRC, or (b) there are enough errors in the file to cause the resultant calculated CRC on the transmitted file to match the transmitted CRC anyway, or (c) both (a) and (b). Sure, the possibilities of failure get tinier and tinier as data gets larger and/or more error codes are used. But the probability never reaches zero. There is no way to ever actually *prove* a file on the internet got transmitted correctly. Think about it. Even if you could do direct file comparison tests, that process itself involves the use of communication techniques that cannot be proved 100% reliable.

      Given enough files getting transmitted on the internet each day, and statistically, sooner or later, someone is likely to get a "wrong" file. I think thats what he was basically saying; that a similar principle of statistical reliability applies to our assumption of predictibility of behaviour on a macroscopic scale. That things appear reliable because the probability of all sub-atomic particles that they are composed of all "failing" at once is extremely close to zero.

    14. Re:hmmm... quantum effects by morie · · Score: 2
      Sorry, no. study has just started and the B.SC. is in dutch. M.Sc. will be in english later, and so will the site be.

      Maybe you could check the "Master of Industrial Ecology" site. Same universities, but that's an english mastercourse... One of its contributiors is the CML (Centre for Environmental Studies) in Leiden

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
  22. IBM has some stiff competition... by CySurflex · · Score: 3, Funny

    Tiny computers were there first, and I believe they even have a patent for the worlds smallest computers. Pictures of the products on their web site are actual size.

  23. Demanding! by kwilliams · · Score: 1

    It's small, what more do you want? :-)

  24. Oh my God by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 5, Funny

    What if we're all part of some gigantic computer and the molecules we put to work computing were already computing something ?

    Is God going to sue us for stealing processing power ?

    graspee

    1. Re:Oh my God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course we're all part of some giant computer. We're here to compute the question that goes with the answer "42".

    2. Re:Oh my God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if we're all part of some gigantic computer and the molecules we put to work computing were already computing something ?

      nah they finished computing
      its 42

    3. Re:Oh my God by EngMedic · · Score: 1

      What if we're all part of some gigantic computer and the molecules we put to work computing were already computing something?
      1. We'd better not end up with "What do you get when you multiply six by nine"
      2. Watch out for Vogon deconstructor fleets.

      --
      filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
    4. Re:Oh my God by G-funk · · Score: 3, Funny

      What if we're all part of some gigantic computer and the molecules we put to work computing were already computing something ?

      Well duh! What do you think the mice are doing here?

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    5. Re:Oh my God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'd better not end up with "What do you get when you multiply six by nine"

      53?

    6. Re:Oh my God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      > Well duh! What do you think the mice are doing here?

      **glances around the door, looks into the kitchen**

      Eating my Wheat Thins, apparently.

    7. Re:Oh my God by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Funny

      You are exactly right. God is a human computer user in the year 2743. He's trying to decide what to buy his girlfriend for her birthday, so he's decided to make a computational model of the universe so that he can check which gift is the one that's most likely to help him get lucky tonight.

      He wants it to be accurate, so he's modeling every moment since the year 2001.

      You've made a great point about how presumptive all religions are.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    8. Re:Oh my God by EngMedic · · Score: 1

      indeed. The Ultimate answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything is 42. However, the Earth, which was a gigantic organic computer built to find the ultimate question, was destroyed 5 minutes before the program was completed by the Vogons, making way for an interstellar bypass.
      Arthur Dent, the last human male in existance, and last-generation program output, drew scrabble pieces from a rabbit skin to use chaos to tap into his subconcious and reveal the ultimate question that way- but the program outputted a false result anyway, because the earth was mistakenly seeded with throwaway citizens from another planet, who burned down the forests and disrupted the evolution of the monkeys (thus introducing unknown variables into the computer matrix...). Thus, the 'ultimate question' gives the wrong answer; 54.
      (oddly enough, 6*9 = 42, modulus 13. . . but douglas adams didn't know that when he wrote the books...)

      --
      filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
    9. Re:Oh my God by tahpot · · Score: 1

      27 July 2002 issue New Scientist...
      Subscribers: http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/art icle.jsp?rp=1&id=mg17523535.900

      Basically:
      At some point, civilisation will develop enormously powerful computers capable of mimicking what we call consciousness. And if that premise is true, the rest follows logically.

      Humans will one day simulate consciousness, and then go on to create simulated Universes for it to live in. If that's true then the chances are they've already done so, and you're living in one.

      OK, it's just possible that you're part of the pre-simulation real world - the "original history". But given how many simulations there'll be, the probability of that is very slim. All things considered the probability that you're living in a simulation is "close to unity:.

    10. Re:Oh my God by Ian+Peon · · Score: 2

      ...could you imagine a beouwolf cluster of us things?

    11. Re:Oh my God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      We have no data whatsoever, so you cannot estimate the probability at "close to unity."

      Furthermore, if we do develop such an AI, it seems to me that it would be more practical to give it some decent I/O instead of putting it in a fake universe where it can't actually do anything to help us solve our problems.

      I'm not saying we couldn't be simulations. We may very well be. But there's absolutely no evidence either way at this point.

    12. Re:Oh my God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming that the universe *can* be simulated by a device smaller than the universe.

      If we take as given that the most fundamental laws of physics are simple, then such a simulator would clearly be emulating that simplest system. But the scale of that simple purely accurate physic is subatomic.

      To simulate subatomic interactions in our hypothetical future computer will presumably require a physical computational device. It will presumably need to store information about the particles being simulated. In order to simulate the entire universe (without a computer larger than the universe) you would quite literally need to store more information than is physically possible (since your medium is made the same stuff as the universe).

      Even if you imagine a metaphysical supercomputer given as capable of such a task then the universe can be simulated (by definition) but you'll never know the results (provided you live in a universe which obeys the same laws as the simulated universe). If you could know the results then there must be an unsimulated egress in the universal system.

      Which begs the fundamental question: is it possible to accurately simulate a universe in which non-influencing 'observation' can occur?

  25. If I had a beowulf cluster of these... by mblase · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...it still wouldn't be large enough to connect a network cable.

    1. Re:If I had a beowulf cluster of these... by pongo000 · · Score: 2

      ...the sysadmins would have to don gas masks for routine maintenance.

  26. Stephenson was first by mfos.org · · Score: 2

    Read The Diamond Age by Neil Stephenson. He talks about rod logic in there, similar to what they are doing at IBM.

  27. Molecular cascade...? by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wasn't that what caused all the aliens to pop up in 'Half-Life'?

    RMN
    ~~~

  28. The biggest difference... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... is that AMD chips run on smoke, and IBM chips run on Carbon Monoxide.

  29. link to their published paper by lysie · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can read the express paper at Science.

  30. Cheating by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article:

    The most complex circuit they built is so small that 190 billion could fit atop a standard pencil-top eraser 7mm in diameter.

    In my days, when you wanted to show something was really small, you counted how many you could fit on the end of a pin, or in the width of a human hair. Comparing it with something that's almost 1 cm across is cheating.

    RMN
    ~~~

    1. Re:Cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded this as 'interesting' clearly likes conspiracy theories. Funny, yes. Interesting, no.

  31. Toppling and resetting the structure! by krazyninja · · Score: 5, Informative

    My first thought was, the structure once toppled, IS toppled, and with a stationary background, it would not be possible to reset it. I found it is indeed true. In the IBM page, it states
    ...It takes several hours to set up the most complicated cascades. Since there is no reset mechanism, these molecule cascades can only perform a calculation once....

    My idea is, have a non-stationary background of copper plane, which through some mechanism (which causes repulsion of the CO molecules) places the molecules in the reset position, ready to be "toppled" again!

    --
    "Do something man. Right now."
  32. Yeah, but.. by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2

    Can it work /twice/?
    They compare this to a domino effect. I dont recall any dominos volenteering to set themselves back up. Is this just one-shot proccessing? Nice idea, but I dont think this is the future, not in current form anyway.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  33. Really interresting but... by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 0

    Quantum computing is a far greater solution. Our science has a long way to go i admit, but its able to massively perform parrallel operations before its even turned on. This technology is very promising in the near future. I really like how IBM is not focusing on one new technology either. They seem very diversified.

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
  34. What's the limit? by Icefyre · · Score: 1

    The average desktop size/weight has been decreasing consistantly since they were released to the general public, and I'm wondering how small computers can get before it's impractical to upgrade them - or the parts become too fragile to touch. A molecular cascade doesn't exactly sound like something you can handle easily, never mind install yourself. Still, pretty amazing stuff.

    --
    "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals. I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants."
    1. Re:What's the limit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make big chips out of small stuff.
      More power

  35. Re:Owww.... Holographic photonic nanotransistors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a concept conceived years ago by a 3D volume holographic optical storage nanotechnology
    company.
    .
    offers 3D Volume versus IBM 2D Area circuits
    .
    it seems to me it is going to be much more difficult to produce these electron type
    circuits versus a strictly photonic crystal
    concept based on MOCVD or some other
    advanced coating method.
    .
    the density and complexity of the circuits for
    holographic photon nanotransistors can offer
    alot more advantages.
    .

  36. P.S. by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

    For Americans who are unfamiliar with international units such as an Azerbaijan, it slightly smaller than Maine.

    The CIA website provides a convient and fairly comprehensive translation table between US units and international units.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    1. Re:P.S. by jonbrewer · · Score: 2

      a convient and fairly comprehensive translation table

      That's one of the more frightening things I've ever seen the US government do. I wonder if it was for the sake of W...

    2. Re:P.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't try and re-export the table, because it's in our national interest to prevent it falling into the hands of terrorists.

    3. Re:P.S. by peter · · Score: 2

      > Canada slightly larger than the US

      SLIGHTLY? We ... maple syrup ... CA*Net4 network ... beavers ... huge barely populated northern islands ... suck on that ... we'll see who's slightly what!

      --
      #define X(x,y) x##y
      Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
  37. A handful? by eGabriel · · Score: 1

    How many of these molecules can fit in someone's hand? Even for small values of 'handful', this seems like an awful lot of molecules.

  38. As seen on Star Trek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how words and phrases from daily life are starting to sound like
    something out of a Star Trek episode.

    - Captain! The aliens scan is overwhelming the ship's computer processing power!
    - Ensign, begin a reverse scan using a molecular cascade.
    - But I don't know how long she'll hold!

  39. parallelism is a bit overrated by shren · · Score: 5, Informative

    You have to learn entirely different programming methods to program algorithms to run in parallel. Managing memory and cache access between multiple processors is a pain in the ass on the hardware side. That's what makes mobos for multiple processors more expensive. Plus, some tasks are just not well-suited to scaling across multiple processors at all.

    In short, I'd rather have a one processor machine over a two or more processor machine if the one processor machine gives sufficient speed for a reasonable price.

    --
    Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
    1. Re:parallelism is a bit overrated by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 2

      they're not discussing the equivalent of a microship in the article, they're discussing the atomic equivalent of a logic gate -- today's processor have billions that are hundreds of thousands of times larger. can you imagine a single processor's worth of those atoms working as a single chip. i bet the Q3 benchmarks would run great on that.

    2. Re:parallelism is a bit overrated by tahpot · · Score: 1

      Parallelism overrated? Excuse me, but do you know what parrallelism is?

      For starters, having multiple processors is not parellism in its true form. It involves quantum mechanics which we still don't fully understand, but results in processing power of incredible speeds... ie: 10^150 more than we can ever get with moore's law!

    3. Re:parallelism is a bit overrated by master_p · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it is not overrated at all. The problem lies in the non-wide usage of languages like Concurrent C that are build from the ground up to support parallelisation.

      A compiler should be able to find all memory accesses that are parallel and provide the appropriate locks around that memory. I don't have the time to prove it mathematically, but here is the idea:

      Let's say that memory address X is to be accessed from two or more threads.

      int x; //accessed by two or more threads //access to global x
      void access_x()
      {
      x = 5;
      } //indirect access to global x
      void indirect_access_x()
      {
      access_x();
      } //thread1
      void foo1()
      {
      access_x();
      } //thread2
      void foo2()
      {
      indirect_access_x();
      } //main
      int main()
      {
      begin_thread(foo1);
      begin_thread(foo2);
      }

      What stops a compiler from understanding that both threads access the memory location 'x' ? all it needs to know is where a thread starts. Then it could certainly built a tree internally for variable access.

      Even in cases that you have pointers and parameters, the multithreaded access can still be caught by the compiler:

      int x; //multithreaded access

      int *p = //indirect access to multithreaded 'x' //this should be caught from the compiler.
      void pointer_access()
      {
      *p = x;
      }

    4. Re:parallelism is a bit overrated by Marulq · · Score: 1

      You don't have to learn entirely different methods - get yourself a good J2EE app server and it will take care of all that stuff.

    5. Re:parallelism is a bit overrated by joto · · Score: 3
      A compiler should be able to find all memory accesses that are parallel and provide the appropriate locks around that memory.

      Yes, it should be able to. Whether it should do is a matter of taste. Paralell programming is still hard, and this doesn't make it significantly easier. It still doesn't tell you how to avoid deadlocks, how to structure your program for reasonable performance (too many locks, and you could just as well have a single-threaded program), how to make transactions (locking every memory access to each variable is not enough, sometimes you want to guarantee that a sequence of accesses is serialized), how to avoid starvation of resources, how to prove your algorithm correct (debuggers are more or less useless in multithreaded programs), how to design the algorithm in the first place, how the design of the interconnections between the processors should be and what this means for performance in the program, and of course the standard issues of priority inversion, cache coherency, thread cancellation, etc...

      What stops a compiler from understanding that both threads access the memory location 'x' ?

      In C, it's pointer arithmetic. In other languages, the complexity of global analysis (this can be fixed).

    6. Re:parallelism is a bit overrated by dviljoen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Stop thinking in terms of single applications. All machines (SMP and Uni) run LOTS of processes. More CPU's means more things can run simultaneously.

      BTW, even for single applications, multi-threading is tricky, but not THAT hard. Any second year CompSci student can do that.

  40. Smaller = Faster Bitrot by johnrpenner · · Score: 2


    there is a nail stuck in a piece of stone for 200 years.
    the nail has fused itself into the stone.

    there is a glass window pane, it has slowly melted
    into a warbled surface, so the light passing through
    it and coming into my room is no longer uniform.

    the smaller you make it,
    the less long it will last.

    the 0.20 micron chips will last longer
    than the nano-chips made 10 years later.

    cheers!
    john

    1. Re:Smaller = Faster Bitrot by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 0

      Any proof? Explain why please.

      --

      ----
      Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    2. Re:Smaller = Faster Bitrot by ZigMonty · · Score: 2

      there is a glass window pane, it has slowly melted
      into a warbled surface, so the light passing through
      it and coming into my room is no longer uniform.

      Glass doesn't flow. Old glass is crap because it was crap when they made it. Their manufacturing techniques weren't as good as ours.

      Here a link.

    3. Re:Smaller = Faster Bitrot by cybermace5 · · Score: 2

      there is a glass window pane, it has slowly melted
      into a warbled surface, so the light passing through
      it and coming into my room is no longer uniform.


      Nope. Myth. Glass doesn't sag. It was like that to begin with[0]; glass processes have gotten better which is why window panes today are perfectly flat. This analogy actually DISPROVES what you are trying to say.

      [0] They used to blow a big bubble of molten glass on the end of a metal rod. While spinning the bubble, someone would break the bubble at the end, causing the edges of the bubble to fly out and form a spinning disk. The edge portions of the discs were cut into panes; while pretty flat, they would have concentric irregularities. The center of the disk was called a bulls-eye, they would use them in windows and lamps to spread light in different directions.

      --
      ...
    4. Re:Smaller = Faster Bitrot by shepd · · Score: 1

      Query: Which lasts longer, an old LD or a new DVD?

      I think you might not like the answer. And at least then it really is called "rot". :-)

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  41. Re:Europe by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 0

    I should say something about the americans, even the ones who went to private schools, and how they are always sent back a grade or two and still do poorly. Perhaps i should also remark on the fact that Americans hire educated canadians all of the time.

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
  42. Re:WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would that even be visible to the naked eye? :)

  43. Ob. punchline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where would you find a lawyer in heaven? :)

  44. Implants? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    How about an unobtrusive implant as powerful as a modern workstation, wired to your nervous system, controlled by neural impulses and running the latest version of Windows?

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:Implants? by Lochin+Rabbar · · Score: 1

      How about an unobtrusive implant as powerful as a modern workstation, wired to your nervous system, controlled by neural impulses and running the latest version of Windows?

      Along with the accompanying clause in the EULA allowing Microsoft to alter your neurons as and when they deem it necessary. No thankyou!

    2. Re:Implants? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      For the whole TDMA or whatever the darn hardware enforcement of the DMCA is called, for that to work users would have to be part of the system too.

      You couldn't buy a computer that you could use without an implant.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  45. If that's the case... by wirefarm · · Score: 2

    > What if we're all part of some gigantic computer and the molecules we put to work computing were already computing something ?


    I tend to think that we're more likely the mung that's collected inside God's keyboard...

    "News Flash! Hubble Telescope Detects Giant Fingernail Clipping and Cluster of Muffin Crumbs"

    Cheers,
    Jim

    --
    -- My Weblog.
  46. Here you go! by Ryan+Stortz · · Score: 1

    Azerbaijan = 86,600 sq km.

    86600000000mm/(7*3.14159)mm

    3937951346.74752957215022602294652*190,000,000,000

    So small that 748,210,755,882,030,618,708 could cover Azerbaijan!

    --
    Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
    1. Re:Here you go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sq km is one by one km, or 1e6 m^2
      The area of a standard pencil-top eraser is
      pi*((7e-3)/2)^2=3.848e-5 m^2
      so the answer is (I think)
      190e9*86600*1000^2/3.848e-5 =
      4.3e+026 of these things would would fit in one Azerbaijan

  47. Wait'll the NAACM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hears about this...

  48. Cascading domino NOT gate is easy by WeeGadget · · Score: 5, Informative

    If a cascading molecule NOT gate is hard then thier cascading domino metaphor must not be accurate... It's easy to build a domino NOT gate. Here's how:

    TtttttttttttttR
    i
    i
    I

    It's 2 runs in an L shape. Simultaneously gate a True signal at T and the input signal at I, read the result at R. Note: True = Falls, False = Stands.

    Here's how it works :
    If I = True then the shorter I run knocks down the last t. When the longer T run reaches R, the last t will already have fallen so R will not fall. so we have:
    I = True --> R = False

    If I = False then the T run will knock down R. So we have:
    I = False --> R = True

    That's a NOT gate!

    Combine that with a V shaped OR gate and you have a NOR gate. It's well known that any logic function can be constructed from NOR gates.

    Jonathan Weesner

    1. Re:Cascading domino NOT gate is easy by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 2

      It's well known that any logic function can be constructed from NOR gates.

      Now I'm only midway through my intro to digital logic class this semester, but from my current understanding can't you massage any logic function to be implemented with any sort of gates you want? It may not be pretty, but it always seems possible.

    2. Re:Cascading domino NOT gate is easy by Wraithlyn · · Score: 2

      Well this is PURE speculation at 2am, so don't take me too seriously. But, with the sizes they're talking about, I don't see how the domino analogy COULD be accurate.. I imagine it's more akin to those hanging steel ball contraptions where you drop one at one end and the energy is transferred to the other end... Now, try and build a NOT gate out of one of those! Not so simple anymore, I think... :)

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    3. Re:Cascading domino NOT gate is easy by eet23 · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, the only two-input gates that will make any logic funtion alone are NAMD and NOR.

    4. Re:Cascading domino NOT gate is easy by WeeGadget · · Score: 1
      ...can't you massage any logic function to be implemented with any sort of gates you want?

      Not so... If you design a device that implements the NOT function -- a NOT gate -- there are no combinations of your device that will yield OR, AND, NOR, NAND, etc.

      Similarly, you cannot implement all those functions with only OR gates or only AND gates.

      But... combinations of NOR gates can be used to implement NOT, OR, AND, NAND, etc. The same is true for NAND gates but NOR gates are usually easier to implement.

      Of course, it's not very efficient to implement complex functions using only NOR gates... but it's interesting that it can be done.

    5. Re:Cascading domino NOT gate is easy by WeeGadget · · Score: 1

      <i>...those hanging steel ball contraptions... try and build a NOT gate out of one of those!</i><p>
      Hmmm... How about this:<p>
      d

  49. Dangerous Server Rooms by A+Guy+From+Ottawa · · Score: 1

    Why do I get the feeling that in 10 years I'll be reading a story like this on slashdot:

    The Most Dangerous Server Rooms
    An anonymous reader writes: "The Register is running an article about an incompetent system admin that installed a Molecule Cascading Sodium-Server below a rack of Molecule Cascading H2O Hubs.

    --

    using System.Awesome;

  50. Re:Owww.... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    What the fuck is wrong with the moderators today? Jesus christ! This is what I posted:
    Tiny pr0n!!!!
    And this is the totally phuked-up/brain-dead moderation I got: Moderation Totals: Offtopic=2, Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Total=7.
    Off-topix? okay; Flamebait? Troll? what the fuck???; Funny? okay; Overrated? maybe.

    Check the original post and see for yourself.

  51. this is it by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 2

    this is it -- this is the way computing will go. ultra-small, using tiny amounts of energy (you could power a tiny supercomputer just with your body heat. a few breakthroughs from now and combined with advanced MEMs, the possibilities are frightening.

  52. Fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what happens when one of these tries to divide by zero?!?

    Cursed IBM, you've damned us all!!

  53. Trouble with accountants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This researcher writes that he had trouble with Accounting over his expense report to buy 600 dominoes to do simulation work before attempting the experiment at the atomic level. After my personal experience at a large multinational, he would have had an easier time getting a $100,000 project approved to write a program to simulate the dominoes - even though this is many, many times the cost of the real ones!

  54. No Not gate?? by Bush_man10 · · Score: 1

    Seems they can't invert a signal. To bad that's one of the most important logic operations. I don't have a clue how they will invert a signal with the method they are using. Cool article though..

    --
    "I believe in everything in moderation. Including moderation." -Dean DeLeo, Stone Temple Pilots
  55. Like an Etch-a-Sketch by JMZero · · Score: 2

    You just hold it upside down and shake it.

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  56. The Intel Crazium Processor by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 4, Funny
    In other news, Intel has today announced the immediate delivery of their new processor, the Crazium. Touted as being the most technologically advanced processor ever developed, the Crazium is said to execute, in a matter of microseconds, programs that take many hundreds of hours on the most powerful supercomputers. The Crazium boasts many innovative technologies that will certainly crush all of Intel's competitors. These include:
    • Simultaneous Multiprocessing, a technology said to allow several hundred instructions to execute through the same physical wires and gates simultaneously. This allows Intel to reduce the transistor count from 948,089,112,552 transistors, as in the Pentium 6, to 14 transistors. (Plans for the next revision include dropping one of the remaining 14 transistors for cost effectiveness.)
    • Temporal Result Ordering, which uses a built-in fluxcapacitor to efficiently move instructions and data backwards and forwards in time. This allows the processor to execute code during idle cycles and deliver the results to processes that have already finished executing, or will begin executing at some future time. This provides an incredible boost in speed and efficiency because:
      1. The processor can use the result of a computation before the computation itself is executed, and even before the program that contains the computation is loaded into memory.
      2. Computations whose results will be used at some future time can be performed early, before the user even decides to run the program.
    • SpiritRun Technology, an extension of Temporal Result Ordering, which allows the processor to execute program code by its spirit, rather than its letter. As all programs contain bugs, or programmer errors which lead to undesired program behavior and crashes, this technology will save businesses over $80 billion dollars per year in lost data, staff time and resources. SpiritRun uses Temporal Result Ordering to detect crashes before they occur (again, during idle cycles taking place in the past, present or future) and analyses the program in its entirety to determine the cause of the undesired operation. At this time, the processor automatically corrects the program code to provide the desired operation. This technology also makes all code 100% secure because the processor detects crackers before they're even born and automatically modifies the holes that allowed them access in the first place.
    • Built-in Photorealism Processing Unit, which generates photorealistic graphics by allocating a parallel universe which physically contains a perfect replica of the object being rendered and a photographer. The photographer takes a perfect photograph of the subject and it is digitally transmitted via the Interverse to the processor. Because the parallel universe has a timeline of its own, completely separated from our perception of time, this information appears to arrive immediately, even though the photography may take several hours in the parallel universe.
    • Built-in Orchestra Sound Unit, which generates sounds for audio applications which rivals that of the greatest orchestras in the world. This works similarly to the Photorealism Processing Unit, except that a parallel universe is created which contains an orchestra. The sound is recorded and transmitted, again, appearing to arrive immediately, even though the orchestra may have practiced the piece for years in the parallel universe.
    As you can clearly see, AMD has a lot of catching up to do.
  57. faster computers? by tqft · · Score: 1

    The fastest way to get faster computers would be to get better software. When Moore's law finally flat lines silicon's speed growth, the first thing (hopefully someone is on it right now) to do will be to rewrite all the software. OpenOffice 50Mb download for Win - MS office is how many times larger? My 500k budget spreadsheet in Excel became 147k under OO. Just to annoy you all, a low power one use logic circuit would be ideal for the music heavies to embed on a CD/DVD to lock down which machine it can be played on.

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
  58. Nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "molecular cascades are still going to be smaller"

    Yeah, sure, but what happens if you apply Moore's Law on molecular cascades in the same time period? Nothing! ;)

  59. Nobody knows yet... by Goonie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Maybe this won't have *any* practical applications. It's pure research. Maybe it'll sit in a journal for 20 years before some young postgrad will read it, realize that because of (insert random other advances here) he or she can use that technology to {control nanobots, build a beowulf cluster on a chip, implant it in people's brains}.

    Kind of like when Alexander Fleming wrote up a journal paper back in 1928(?) about how mould killed bacteria, and Walter Florey found it in a literature search a decade later and set his research team to isolate the responsible compound and figure out how to produce it in bulk.

    I've had this experience myself. I needed to find an efficient algorithm for a relatively obscure problem. The usual textbooks didn't help, but I finally located a survey paper which finally revealed a 1981 journal article which described exactly the algorithm I was looking for.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  60. size isue by hfastedge · · Score: 0
    Size of the chips is becoming a big issue.

    As the components get smaller, they get very fragile. This is actually the reason that chip makers seek to fully automate chip plants...eg to keep shaky human hands off the product.

    I wonder how viable this small technology is here. probably wont be good for laptops.

    Im also curious how this tech. performs speedwise; this wasnt mentioned.

    --

    -- -- --

    Help my mini cause: My journal

  61. stuff is stable at the atomic level by g4dget · · Score: 2

    DNA is an example of a molecule where the position of billions of individual atoms matters. And, guess what, it's quite stable and it works very well for information storage.

  62. too small for us by jsse · · Score: 1

    "Sorry Dave, we lost a server"

    "It crashed?"

    "No...we just couldn't find it."

  63. More like 27 years... by Wraithlyn · · Score: 2

    Also, their math doesn't make sense.

    They say it's 250,000 times smaller than current tech, then they say it's better than current tech plus 40 years of Moore's Law.

    Moore's Law states a doubling period of 18 months, or 1.5 years. This gives 26.666... doubling periods for 40 years. So, "if CMOS density follows Moore's Law for 40 more years", it will be 2 ^ 26.666 times smaller, which is in the neighborhood of 106.5 MILLION... that's more than 425 times smaller than "250,000 times smaller".

    To reach 250,000 times smaller, under Moore's Law, 27 years would be more than enough.

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  64. I can do this! by jericho4.0 · · Score: 3, Funny
    The slow operation of the gates -- some required seconds to settle -- underscores the fact that the work was part of a research project.
    Ok. I could build an AND gate out of teenage girls and cell phones that would settle within an order of magnitude of this. (yes I'm trying to be funny, but the statement is true).

    It's an interesting project, but that's a long way to go....

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  65. Woops... I'll try that again by WeeGadget · · Score: 1
    ...those hanging steel ball contraptions... try and build a NOT gate out of one of those!

    Hmmm... How about this:

    Simultaneously swing the left ball and your input (I) on the right ball... then read the result (R) on the left ball. It works like this:

    if I = True then swing the left ball and the right (I) ball simultaneously... then notice that the left (R) ball stops dead... representing false.
    so I = True --> R = False

    If I = False then swing the left ball and do not swing the right (I) ball... then notice that the left (R) ball continues to swing... representing true.
    so I = False --> R = True

    It's clumsy, but if you could somehow combine it with a V shaped OR gate then you would have that holy grail NOR device.

  66. Old Hat by BoBaBrain · · Score: 1

    ...pushes a handful of carbon monoxide molecules across a copper surface to perform digital logic functions.

    Pfft... That's nothing. My PC pushes electrons across a gold surface to perform digital logic functions.

    --
    I am a Karma Library.
  67. Linux? by axxackall · · Score: 1
    What is the OS installed on such a small computer? I beleive it is Linux.

    Seriously, MS Windows is too big, even Windows CE is too big comparing how Linux can shrunk.

    I guess BSD doesn't have any chances in IBM products because BSDL is not viral enough - and that was IBM requires to protect IP of their contributions to the OS.

    And no doubts that Java will no way work on such micro devices.

    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are chips where Linux, Java, Windows CE, and other k3wl shit simply have no place.

  68. Surely the best part... by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
    was the guy putting 600 dominoes on expenses?

    Imagine your average IBM bean counter receiving that claim!

    --
    oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  69. Carbon Monoxide? by Fapestniegd · · Score: 1

    I guess in the future, computers really will run on smoke.

  70. temperature by jeepee · · Score: 1

    "Temperature: IBM's initial cascades were created and operated a 4-10 degrees above absolute zero. In their paper, the scientists show how cascades operate faster at higher temperatures." a new generation of overclockers is born and water coolers dead! how about plutonium avtivated heaters!

  71. Wrong way wrong... by caldaan · · Score: 1

    First of all, it was probably at 4-10 K because it is unstable at room temperature meaning( ie 0Hz at room temperature). Second of all thank god air molecules aren't actually traveling around the room at 300m/s. I mean a tornado can send a pencil thorugh a telephone pole at a slower velocity. Thanks for showing why you can't indiscriminately put two energy equations together and come out with the right answer.

    1. Re:Wrong way wrong... by peter · · Score: 2

      > Second of all thank god air molecules aren't actually traveling around the room at 300m/s.

      Your god isn't helping you very much, apparently :(

      > I mean a tornado can send a pencil thorugh a telephone pole at a slower velocity.

      A pencil masses ~5 grams. An average CO molecule weighs 28.009 atomic mass units. The pencil is 10^23 times heavier. That is a _lot_, and has a big influence on pole penetrating ability.

      > Thanks for showing why you can't indiscriminately put two energy equations together and come out with the right answer.

      This is true, but E=kT*3/2 does give the average kinetic energy of particles in a gas. Thus, it is not at all indescriminate to use this to find the average velocity.

      Air molecules really do go zipping around at hundreds of meters per second. (RMS velocity of air molecules at 15C is ~500m/s.) They are not very massive, so each one doesn't do much. Moreover, at atmospheric pressure, there are so many collisions per second that everything averages out really really well. The chance of a large enough imbalance of air molecules all hitting a pencil from the same direction and accelerating it to tornado velocities is infinitesimal. (Think thermodynamics and entropy: a lot of molecules all going in the same direction would be a lower entropy state than the usual random directions. Starting with a high entropy, random direction, set of air molecules, you're going to have to wait more than the age of the universe to see them all going in the same direction (for a large amount of air molecules, where large is a number at least big enough to make my claim true).)

      If you don't believe me (even though I have a physics&CS honours degree), go look it up. I got the 498 m/s RMS speed for molecules of dry air at 1atm, 15C from G.K. Batchelor's "An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics", in Appendix 1 (p. 594). (Every physics book is "intro to" something. I'd hate to see how hard a textbook that wasn't "just an introduction" was. :)

      --
      #define X(x,y) x##y
      Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
  72. Make it yoctoAzerbaijans by WillWare · · Score: 2

    After all, 4.4585 yAz equals one square micron. It's a much more sensible unit. The sorter is around 900 micro-yAz.

    --
    WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
  73. Funnily enough this is true by szyzyg · · Score: 2

    Intel experienced a lot of resistance from engineers when they introduced their first microprocessor. Some of them joked about losing their computer in the cracks between floorboards, although the main problem was that they couldn't get their mind around replacing the whole CPU if one transistor on it failed.

  74. I want my 1 TB flash card by Mittermeyer · · Score: 2

    Okay, so these things aren't into speed. They could work great for storage though.

    --
    ________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
  75. I saw the demo by sarice · · Score: 1

    This project was demonstrated at the World SF Convention (ConJose) at the end of August. They had a live connection to their lab in Almaden.

    Placing three CO molecules in a chevron formation caused the middle CO to jump out after ~30 seconds. We saw that live. Actually, I think they said that they deliberately chose such a slow-acting process so they could see the "before" and "after" states clearly considering the time the STM takes to scan the whole surface (which seemed to be ~10 seconds).

    The complex computation that they performed was a giant web of these chevrons (AND gates) and other patterns. With 30 seconds per transition, the whole thing took hours. They just showed us some snapshots of a previous run for this part.

    The best part was after the talk, when they let us come up and remotely control the STM, moving CO molecules around! For the show, they had formed a big rocket image, and we moved stars around it.

    That was breathtaking.

  76. What do you do for a living? by orichter · · Score: 2

    The fact that the table exists doesn't surprise me that much (in other words no assinine waste of taxpayer money surprises me anymore.) My question is: What job do you have that you would happen to have this link on hand, and how might I apply. (Or did you just figure such a unit conversion must exist and do a google search.) I await and fear any reply.

    1. Re:What do you do for a living? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I happened to stumble across it while searching for the "most obscure" country in the world. Azerbaijan only came into existance around 1990, with the fall of the Soviet Union. I almost went with Lesotho (which is entirely inside the country of South Africa), except Azerbaijan SOUNDS like a country name, and I suspect people would have thought Lesotho was a made-up word without looking.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  77. Not parallel! by siskbc · · Score: 2

    "Do it in parallel" is one of those great buzzwords in tech that claims to solve all problems, but ends up failing (for what it's worth, "Use a neual net!" is another of my favorites).

    People, the costs of parallelizing a given problem are LARGE. It works best for iterative problems, where you require little inter-processor communication. By splitting your chip in two (effectively), you are reducing the communication between the two parts to that of the front-side bus, which is much slower than within-chip communication. Folding@home works in parallel because the jobs are easily distributed. But many things don't work so well. Imagine a graphics card trying to do this, frame rates would be like .002 fps.

    This is why, if I have a certain number of transitors to "play" with, the fastest chip has them all on one die. Parallelizaion is only done when you just can't find a chip fast enough to do what you want to do (Think Beowulf clusters).

    And actually, our brain models best, I think, as a single chip, maybe as a 2-chip system. Yes, it has regions devoted to different tasks, but so does a single chip. Also, the fact that our brains have two hemispheres is a severe detriment - this is why we can only control one of our hands particularly well. The reason is the same as with a 2-processor PC - information transfer is slow between the boundary. If we had a one-hemisphere brain, we would be much more capable.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:Not parallel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > If we had a one-hemisphere brain, we would be much more capable.

      I don't know about you, but we've already made effective use of the dual-hemisphere brain (remember, right-side is for creativity, left-side is for logic).

      I seriously doubt that you would you be willing to get a hemispherectomy to prove your above premise. See what happens to 1 person of out 1000 cases.

  78. Forty years? by Felinoid · · Score: 1

    'Even if CMOS density follows Moore's Law for 40 more years, molecular cascades are still going to be smaller,'
    Thusly they won't have it practical within that time frame.
    Neat thow. So they'll be using this some day and to find out that day just use Moor's law.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
  79. Neural Science: the final frontier by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1
    People, the costs of parallelizing a given problem are LARGE.

    My point exactly. Our world's science community's focus should be applying the fantastic Moore's Law toward doubling the progress of Neural Science every year and a half (never mind the Beowulf parallelism).

    NEURAL plus LOGIC

    Once the Neural Science technology has reach our brain capability and we couple this with flawless and forgetless logic of our existing computing world, our lives will be changed forever. That itself, its as powerful as E=mc2.

  80. Hemispheres by siskbc · · Score: 2

    You might want t check this out a little further - in terms of vision, for instance, initial processing of images from right eye is done by the left side of the brain, and vice versa. (The wiring is strangely crossed). Of course, different functions that use visual info are on either the right or left side, respectively. Because of the bandwidth choke between hemishpheres, info from different eyes will get to functional areas of the brain at different rates.

    As you might imagine, some visual tasks are traditionally "right brain" and some are "left brain." So, in tasks where subjects were required to use only one eye, for instance the left eye, they would do better at "right brain" activities. Cover up the other eye, and they would do better (faster) in "left brain" tasks.

    And again, the reason is exactly the same as in processors. Info transfer is MUCH faster within hemispheres as is is between them. Similarly, info transfer within a chip is much faster than the front side bus speed, which is the rate at which info would transfer between chips. So one fast chip is always preferable to two slower chips if I have a fixed amount of transistors to work with.

    And our brains would work better, too, if it weren't for that info choke between hemispheres. That's one of the disadvantages of bilateral symmetry in humans.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat