Nanotechnology To Replace Conventional CMOS

So... by Brandon+One · 2004-10-17 08:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Size really does matter afterall. Who knew?

Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 08:20 · Score: 0

Apparently your girlfreind didn't.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 09:09 · Score: 0

Yes, smaller the better this time! You won't feel left out now!

Translation: by Power+Everywhere · 2004-10-17 08:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Faster, cooler chips about a decade from now when the whole chip paradigm has shifted. Nanotech will still have an application, but not as a replacement for current methods. Instead nanotech will be integrated into new manufacturing technology from the ground up.

--

BLING BLING. Meet the architecture that's changing everything.

Re:Translation: by kilonad · 2004-10-17 11:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

How many cores will there be on a single chip a decade from now? About 64-128 if Moore's law holds (remember, it's the number of transistors, not the speed). I highly doubt we'll see more than 4-8 cores on desktop computers, even given a whole decade. There will come a point where adding more cores won't be economical or the sensible answer for more computing power, just as making chips faster isn't the answer right now. The paradigm will then shift towards either making the individual cores smaller in order to pack more on a single chip and/or making each individual core run faster and cooler. Nanotechnology is positioning itself as the answer ten years from now, you just can't see it. Putting any more than 4 cores in the same form factor as today's CPUs will absolutely require this kind of technology.
Re:Translation: by RobertB-DC · 2004-10-18 05:18 · Score: 1

Nanotechnology is positioning itself as the answer ten years from now, you just can't see it.

Not without a microscope, at least.

[rimshot] Thanks, I'm here all week, enjoy the buffet!

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.

Finally! by JorDan+Clock · 2004-10-17 08:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

Finally an application for nanotechnology that's getting some attention that doesn't involve little machines crawling around my brain and floating through my blood stream.

Re:Finally! by r2q2 · 2004-10-17 08:01 · Score: 0, Offtopic

You don't like white blood cells do you? Of course thats wet ware.

--
My UID is prime is yours?
Re:Finally! by wass · 2004-10-17 08:42 · Score: 1

actually, 99% of nanotechnological research entails projects like this (or similar w/ dna or other self-assembling systems). It's primarily only in the popular media and sci-fi/fear mongering sites/papers where you hear about nanobots crawling around inside your body.

--
make world, not war
Re:Finally! by bliksem · 2004-10-17 09:07 · Score: 1

Or it may be your blood floating through a little nanomachine.

We have heard enough about 'System-on-a-Chip', nows its time for 'Lab-on-a-chip'

Agilent has an interesting blurb on the subject.

The lab-on-chip concept envisages such things as a disposable device smaller than a postage stamp, with the ability to steer blood and reagents around on a electrode grid or nanotubes. Mix, split, deliver to sensors. Results provided electronically to an external device. Blood work can be done on the spot without waiting for lab results. In large part these devices could be fabricated using technology very similar to that which produces the nm range features for current ICs.
Re:Finally! by JorDan+Clock · 2004-10-17 13:29 · Score: 1

That's what I meant by finally this kind of technology gets some attention. I know most of nanotechnology will never come in contact with people, but it seems like media and what not would lead you to believe that's the only possible application.

Well nothing yet by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 08:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

All the site says is that they are investigating this.

IMEC program participants will investigate the use of semiconducting wires, carbon nanotubes and spintronics and, at the same time, develop the metrology and theoretical approach required as a backbone for implementation of the new methodologies.

I know several other places that have been doing this for a while now. How is this any news at all?

Re:Well nothing yet by JGski · 2004-10-17 12:58 · Score: 1

Quite true. Given the current state of these technologies, we haven't even legitimately started the classic "20 year invention-to-application clock" yet!
For those unfamiliar, it's "well established" that new technologies typically exhibit a 20 year lag between invention and economically relevent application, with the classic example being the Internet (1969->1990). Others examples include Radio, Television, Trains, Steam Engines, etc. etc. The timing varies but no significant technology ever had less than 10 years lag while most have been pretty right on 20+-5 years. My personal belief on why this occurs is that you have to promote/turn-over an entire generation of engineers to overcome the status quo, finish development and create a new crop of techies without a NIH or "that's not how its done" mindset. Too bad the USA won't have a new crop of required techies in the next generation...
Re:Well nothing yet by HMA2000 · 2004-10-19 07:36 · Score: 1

What about the Telephone?
The Cotton Gin?

I think your generalization is bit to broad, but your point is taken.

Electron spin versus magnetic charge by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 08:01 · Score: 4, Informative

We've heard this all before ... in hard drives! Back in 1999, manufacturers started using electron spin rather than magnetic charge to store data. From the article ... "Magnetoelectronics manipulates electrons in semiconductors via electron spin, rather than charge." Most hard drives today are GMR (giant magnetoresistance), or technology derived from GMR.

So it's not too wild to think that they'll be able to do it in RAM and such as well.

Re:Electron spin versus magnetic charge by mindstrm · 2004-10-17 08:28 · Score: 1

I think that's just the r/w heads, the data is still stored magnetically as it always has been.
Re:Electron spin versus magnetic charge by winterlens · 2004-10-17 09:17 · Score: 1

I spoke with a researcher at Ohio State (Dr. Arthur Epstein) a couple years ago who was working on a plastic semiconductor that would allow random access seek time on a permanent storage unit.

His details were geared more to the layman, and I think his applications were more wide-spread than hard drives or consumer-grade computers (think along the lines of wearable computers, including pen-shaped computers; he mentioned several military / GPS appliations), but he thought the technology would hit the market in about a decade (so probably seven or eight years from now).

The major problem was that the transition of electrons between different media (e.g., from a silicon semiconductor to a plastic semiconductor) could very easily corrupt the data transmitted. He thought it would be a few years before those kinks would be worked out.

More information about his research lab is at http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~mepl/.

Ehh... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 08:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Big IC manufacturers hate adopting radically new and risky technologies before they are forced to. I wouldn't expect CMOS to be phased out for a good while. Remember CMOS logic was designed in the early 60s, but most IC manufacturers continued to use PMOS and NMOS chips until the late 80s and early 90s when the size and number of MOSFETs going into ICs caused far too much power dissipation using NMOS/PMOS...

Re:Ehh... by Deorus · 2004-10-17 08:28 · Score: 1, Informative

Excelent, now could you please translate all those acronyms into more plain English just so electronics illiterates such as me could actually read your comment?

From AcronymFinder:
IC = Integrated Circuit
CMOS = Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor
PMOS = Positive-Channel Metal Oxide Semiconductor
NMOS = Negative-Channel Metal Oxide Semiconductor
MOSFET= Metal-Oxide Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistor

Am I getting it all right?
Thanks in advance!
Re:Ehh... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 08:35 · Score: 1, Informative

Sorry, CMOS is the logic technology that is used to build most modern ICs (small device containing many many semiconductors). CMOS is built out of MOSFETs (when someone says 'there are X million transistors on this microprocessor' they are talking about the MOSFET count). The primary feature of CMOS is that it sports two complimentary networks of transistors that only connects VDD or ground at any given time. This means that, ideally, when no data is being switched through the circuit there is zero power dissipation. Of course physics and common sense should tell you that things are never ideal and the smaller MOSFETs get the more power they tend to leak, but CMOS is certainly superior to NMOS (which consists of a ground network and a resistor, so it is constantly leaking power) in the power dissipation department.
Re:Ehh... by wass · 2004-10-17 08:47 · Score: 2, Informative

spintronics is one of the quickest technologies to go from lab to marketplace, second only to the transistor.
IC companies have embraced spintronics, your hard-disk read heads now employ GMR, for instance. IBM and other research labs are spending big $$$ to figure out how to make this technology easily fabricateable. This is NOT traditional CMOS, you can only shrink CMOS down so far, this is for moving beyond.

--
make world, not war
Re:Ehh... by Deorus · 2004-10-17 08:48 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Sorry, didn't mean to, forgot to post as anonymous. To be fair, mod this comment I am posting as offtopic.
Re:Ehh... by hackerjoe · 2004-10-17 08:49 · Score: 1

could you please translate all those acronyms into more plain English just so electronics illiterates such as me could actually read your comment?

So tell me, moderators (because the question just sounds like a troll to me), does knowing what those acronyms stand for actually help you understand the post? :)

Really the important point is that it took them 30 years from the initial development of the new IC manufacturing technology (CMOS) to really replace the old crappy technology (PMOS/NMOS). I'm just out of school, and by analogy none of this fancy new technology will be commonplace until I'm almost retired... of course the IC business is much bigger now and there's more pressure to bring new technologies into production quickly.
Re:Ehh... by hackerjoe · 2004-10-17 08:53 · Score: 1

GMR in hard disk read heads isn't really spintronics, though. It depends on the interaction between magnetic fields and electrons of different spins, but you don't measure the spin of electrons coming out of a GMR sensor, you measure the current flow just like with a traditional disk read head.
Re:Ehh... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 08:56 · Score: 1, Informative

I wouldn't call NMOS/PMOS 'crappy' per se, it's just inherently worse on the power dissipation and isn't very useful for high transistor density and very small MOSFETs. NMOS and PMOS both require nearly half the transistors that CMOS does, and NMOS has the distinct advantage of tending to be faster than CMOS.
Re:Ehh... by BlindShep · 2004-10-17 09:31 · Score: 1

So what are manufactures using these days then, if not CMOS?
As a semiconductor engineer i can tell you that the current standard for most companies is CMOS, and BIPOLAR - the latter being used mainly for RF circuits. The current geometery standard is 0.35um,.
Smaller geometries are being handled by the larger IC manufacturers such as TSMC who can go down to 0.09um (90nm) at present for gate widths.
Yes, heat dissipation is large for modern processor, but that's why you've got half a pound of iron bolted to the thing. Heat dissipation is produced when a gate switches, since it's a capacitive junction, so there is no current flow when the gate is off, hence heat dissipation rises with clock speed.
As for Nanotech - I'd expect the bigger boys, INTEL, AMD, TSMC, etc to pick this up first, since they have the cash for the initial deployment. It'll be a long time (10 years?) before smaller companies see this. The manufacturing risks and investment required are just to great for smaller companies to take on at present.
Personally i'm looking forward to it, 'cause it means i can buy lots of nice high tech kit to play with :)

--
A Dog isn't just for Xmas. With luck there will be some left over for Boxing day as well.
Re:Ehh... by wass · 2004-10-17 09:39 · Score: 2, Informative

GMR is certainly spintronics, polarity of electron spin affects the transport through the multilayer. It doesn't matter if you measure the spin of the electrons used in the resistance measurement, you're _effectively_ reading the spins of the electrons in the two magnetic layers (up to an overall parity), as determined through its giant magnetoresistance.
It seems you are trying to make a semantical argument about this. So don't just take my word for it, see what the Institute of Physics have to say about it as well.

--
make world, not war
Re:Ehh... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 09:41 · Score: 0

Please stop bitching around for an unfortunate comment.

First I was aiming at funny, not informative, then I thought about learning about the meaning of all those acronyms, and finally I forgot to post as nonymous (as was my intention), and so the comment came out just as it was. It was a BAD post in my humble opinion, I was hoping that it wouldn't get modded up, but it was.

Cool off people, I didn't do it on purpose! Mod me down as much as you wish next time you can, I just don't wanna be tagged for something I didn't do intentionally, ok?

For those accusing me of karma whoring: karma is something you have a lot of time to earn. Some people score faster than others, but that isn't really important, especially now that there is a limit on the amount of karma one can score. I'd rather have a lower UID with a -50 karma (and in fact I had one, but forgot the password, and the mailbox associated with it was in a domain which is nolonger under my control) than this newbie-like UID.

I am sorry Slashdot users for my stupid troll comment that as I said above was not intentional, but unfortunately what has been done can't be undone.

-- D
Re:Ehh... by Big_Breaker · 2004-10-17 10:44 · Score: 2, Informative

CMOS "IS" NMOS and PMOS.

CMOS stands for "c"omplementary "m"etal "o"xide "s"emiconductor. What's complementary you ask? Well they use pmos and nmos gates in series between ground and the rails (the voltage/power source) it all the logic stages. The input gates of the nmos and pmos gates are tied together to drive them simulateously. That means that both gates are never totally "active" and power never shoots straight to ground (or through a resistor). Obviouly that saves a ton of power.

Anyhow the point is that it basically didn't take ANY new tech to do cmos - just using pmos and nmos together. That just takes adding some doping stages for n and p type semiconductors in one process.

Nanotech means largely scrapping the old fabs that cost billions each. Not going to happen any time soon.
Re:Ehh... by TFGeditor · 2004-10-17 11:50 · Score: 1

"Well they use pmos and nmos gates in series between ground and the rails (the voltage/power source) it all the logic stages."

That's called a "totem pole" arrangement of a complimentary transistor pair.

--
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.

Nanotech in colleges by BlindSpy · 2004-10-17 08:09 · Score: 3, Informative

Purdue University is making a huge effort to be one of the leading Nanotechnology schools: http://discoverypark.e-enterprise.purdue.edu/wps/p ortal

--
Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Re:Nanotech in colleges by BlindSpy · 2004-10-17 08:14 · Score: 2, Informative

My bad - here's the link: here

--
Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Warning: by Gothmolly · 2004-10-17 08:28 · Score: 1

Acronym overload, please deduct -1 from your Karma and refrain from posting to Slashdot for a 24 hour period.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

You dont know what you are talking about... by imsabbel · 2004-10-17 08:29 · Score: 3, Informative

GMR discs still store the data magnetically.
The MR and GMR effect only replaces the normal inductance coils in the read-head. While older heads registred a voltage spike because of the magnetic flux change in the coil while the data-layer moved below the head, the new heads have a multilayer material that has a spin-sensitive resistance, so the local magnetic field created by the data on the disc spin-polarizes the electrons IN THE HEAD (nothing on the disc) and thus created a vast difference in head resistance depending on the magnetic field.

So the only difference is in how to get the MAGNETICALLY stored data back... Nothing changed in the storage per se.

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?

Re:Are you a Jew? by ScrewMaster · 2004-10-17 08:38 · Score: 1

Oughta be an "AB" (Anonymous Bigot) category here on Slashdot. Interesting that all those repeated characters got past the lameness filter, though.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

nano inflation by kipsate · 2004-10-17 08:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

The term "nanotechnology" is becoming a bit inflated. Companies know that merely mentioning the word nanotechnology in a press-release ensures a lot of extra attention. It is kind of sad that good ol' Slashdot seems to fall for this cheap trick as well.

Not too long ago, nanotechnology was about wonderful fantasies of small machines at nano-level assembling molecules or even medicines. Too bad that simple physics prevent this from becoming a reality (the resistance of air at nano-level is too large, for example). Now, nanotechnology is about punching very small holes in metal.

Maybe it is about time that everyone realizes that nanotechnology is not as exiting as it used to be.

--
My karma ran over your dogma

Re:nano inflation by l3v1 · 2004-10-17 08:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Too bad that simple physics prevent this from becoming a reality (the resistance of air at nano-level is too large, for example)

In many cases that is not a problem. E.g. you make metal gathering proteins to be released in a liquid, or proteins able to detect and contain specific other proteins in a blood stream, and I could go on and on.

Nanotechnology doesn't just mean to be able to manufacture chips on smaller scales. Another very much more important aspect is what we could do with specificly "manufactured" proteins in medicine. And this is not a such far dream, there are people working on this, even some which I know, let alone those whom I don't.

--
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Re:nano inflation by discontinuity · 2004-10-17 09:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Wired ran an interesting article about this. Not a huge surprise, but "nano" has replaced "micro" as the tech buzz word du jour. I think players in the industry realize this and the consumer base will come around in due time -- just the way we have come to accept micro-this, i-that and e-everything.
For anyone interested in the political/institutional side of science, the Wired article is a good read:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/drexler .html
Re:nano inflation by Goldsmith · 2004-10-17 11:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Semiconductors were discovered in 1874, and it wasn't until 1948 that the transistor was discovered, it took a few more decades to really commercialize it. On the whole, roughly 100 years from the discovery of semiconductors to widespread commercial use.

We first developed a device (STM) to image and move individual atoms in 1987. It would not surprise me in the least if it took 100 years for us to come up with something which would be widely commercially available based on atomic scale manufacturing. Have some patience.

I agree that the term "nano" gets thrown around a lot more than it should be, but how do you know one of these nano-gadgets won't be leading the field in the future? I realize that fact that new people and ideas have entered the field pisses some people off, but if an organic chemist wants to call his work on artificial muscle polymers "nanotechnology" I can't find a reason to argue with him.

On the other hand, critisizing the Millipede project for not being "cool enough" is like complaining that the Manhattan project failed to develop the H-bomb. It's a major accomplishment which puts us one step closer in that direction to industrial molecular assembly. Read that article you linked to again, and perhaps a review of Atomic Force Microscopy or Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy. The Millipede project IS nanotechnolgy, and it IS going toward that dream of nano-level assembly.
Re:nano inflation by quasi_steller · 2004-10-17 11:55 · Score: 1

...nanotechnology was about wonderful fantasies of small machines at nano-level assembling molecules or even medicines. Too bad that simple physics prevent this from becoming a reality (the resistance of air at nano-level is too large, for example).

I disagree (not with your definition of nanotech, but with your statement that it is impossible). There are actually examples of "nanotechnology" in nature, such as the cell. There are plenty processes whereby molecules are built up piece by piece in the cell. In fact the cell is very complex and many parts of the cell behave like little machines. We might not currently be able to do what we imagined at first, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that nanotechnology is impossible, just a lot more difficult that we thought at first.

--
...interesting if true.
Re:nano inflation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 12:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

Not too long ago, nanotechnology was about wonderful fantasies of small machines at nano-level assembling molecules or even medicines. Too bad that simple physics prevent this from becoming a reality (the resistance of air at nano-level is too large, for example).

Wow, it's good to know that we don't need to worry about bacteria and viruses any more, since the laws of physics preclude their existence.
Re:nano inflation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 21:52 · Score: 0

Nanotechnology doesn't just mean to be able to manufacture chips on smaller scales. Another very much more important aspect is what we could do with specificly "manufactured" proteins in medicine.

I do not think it is fair for 'nanechnology' to jump on the success of what is just plain biotechnology. These proteins are manufactured by a pure biological process, in the same way as any living organisms creates its proteins (for over millions of years). We do get to say what to build, by altering the gene sequence.

Not exactly nanotechnology as conceived by IMEC and the whole semiconductor industry, which is imo, much harder and much more overhyped.

CMOS? by Scrameustache · 2004-10-17 08:51 · Score: 2, Informative

For those of us who haven't had their 3rd cup of cofee yet, that would be "complementary metal oxide semiconductor".

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Re:CMOS? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 17:09 · Score: 0

wtf? Overrated?
Re:CMOS? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 09:46 · Score: 0

I'm not sure why slashdot needs the underrated and overrated mods.

The only real is use to mod with a bias. Not that people don't usually do that anyway, but those mods seem to encourage it.

Re:Are you a Jew? by Brandon+One · 2004-10-17 09:05 · Score: 1

Wow. That is really bigotish. That is about the worst thing I have ever seen on the internet.

Re:Lets replace something that works! by emmons · 2004-10-17 09:32 · Score: 1

Idiot: most of the chips in your computer use CMOS technology, including your CPU- which is where the problem is developing. We're nearing the limit for size in CMOS, so it's time to look for something else.

--
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.

manufacturers slow to implement by RealProgrammer · 2004-10-17 09:37 · Score: 1

Big IC manufacturers hate adopting radically new and risky technologies before they are forced to.

Are you sure it isn't engineering staffs being slow to implement the new technology? I don't think companies hate new technology, they just don't like investment risk. They want to be where the profit is, which is being "fast followers". As a rule they like to emulate what works. They want to be sure that the design libraries used in the new technology are debugged and working, whether they design the library or license it from someone.

I work in a university VLSI design group. When our grad students get jobs at the big chip makers, what are they going to do when they get there? The same things they've spent a year or seven learning how to do REALLY WELL: design chips using CMOS for ever-smaller manufacturing processes.

That's not to say they won't have the skills needed to design circuits using electron spin, photoresistive antipolar velocity differential, quantum-based philatelics, or whatever. (Don't look those up, I just invented them.)

The point is that it takes time for design libraries to be built for new technologies. Then the applications engineers convince their bosses to get the design libraries so they can start using them. In the case of a radically different technology, that usually means the boss has to hear that some risk-tolerant company is about to take his sales away by using the newer technology.

Looking back at what you said, I guess you're right. Mod me redundant.

--
sigs, as if you care.

AAGGLL Re:Ehh... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 09:38 · Score: 0

spintronics is one of the quickest technologies to go from lab to marketplace, second only to the transistor.

Nope, Viagra went from lab to marketplace faster than the transistor.

Re:Lets replace something that works! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 09:50 · Score: 0

There is a difference between idiots and ignorance. However I do agree with you that the CMOS technology most deffinately is need of replacing. As far as whet it's called .. who cares? Just make it work and work efficiently.

education by drakyri · 2004-10-17 10:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

If this happens soon then it'll cause some trouble; colleges generally don't teach nanotech because it's still very much under development. I'm in a program right now that focuses on CMOS integrated circuit design ... am I going to be obsolete before I get out of grad school?

I guess this happens whenever things shift to a new technology, but still, it's sort of depressing.

Re:education by the_twisted_pair · 2004-10-18 01:08 · Score: 1

I rather doubt it - there are just so many divices where CMOS will be the optimal way forward for cost/packaging/process reasons.

Just think of the vast amounts of 'glue' logic used in everything - no point going 'nano' just because we could. Same reason 8-bit cpus are used more now than ever before....

We're already surrounded by nanotechnology... by hot+soldering+iron · 2004-10-17 11:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's called "biology".

There are several different ways of getting to a functional nano assembler, and one of the current favorites is taking parts of functioning devices (virii and bacteria) and reassemble them into desired configurations.

The only difference between a "nano" device and a virus is who designed it, Dr. Putz or Mother Nature, (Mom built hers using trial and error, lots of "bugs").

--
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.

Re:We're already surrounded by nanotechnology... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 11:19 · Score: 0

virius -> virii
virus -> viruses (plural never occurs in Latin)

Crappy cameras by memodude · 2004-10-17 12:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Cool! Now we can have crappy cameras that are even smaller!

Obligatory Deus Ex Reference #0028 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 12:41 · Score: 0

So when will the killswitch be implemented?

Physorg. Argh by argent · 2004-10-17 13:41 · Score: 1

That's a bloody annoying site. Abstractes that provide little more detail than the Slashdot precis, and no links to sources.

Yooohooo!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 13:44 · Score: 1, Funny

Nanotechnology To Replace Conventional CMOS

Yeaah! Finally!! Cant wait get rid of em Chief Marketing Officers, and their whole stupid feature creating, shrinking deadline mandating ilk...

OH wait.. dang.. its CMOS, not CMOs.. oh well, cant hurt to dream on does it...

It's the Physorg Effect! by argent · 2004-10-17 13:47 · Score: 1

There's been a few Physorg stories show up on /. recently, and they've been abstracts of stuff that's old news. I wanna moderate the site down (redundant?).

Processoers, the unknown nanotechnology by strider_starslayer · 2004-10-17 15:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Seriously; all this talk about nanotechnology, is mostly bunk; we ALLREADY have nanotechnology, most of you are using it RIGHT NOW!

The modern computer processor has bridges that are etched in silicone, a mere 70nm across; that's right 70 nanometers. So instead of saying nanotechnology like it something strange that has never been done before the article should say 'new chips to use nanotubes and spintronix(sp?)'

--
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post

Re:Processoers, the unknown nanotechnology by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 18:37 · Score: 0

...bridges that are etched in silicone...

You're thinking of a CRT.

IMEC gave me nightmares by Gauss'+Law · 2004-10-17 16:34 · Score: 1, Funny

I was at IMEC last month during a conference (ESSCIRC, held in Leuven, Belgium) and I really thought that they had an excellent group of people with great research topics (cubic centimeter sensor nodes, new embedded RAM, nano-fab, etc). That is until I saw a director PICK HIS NOSE AND THEN SUCK HIS FINGER DRY!! When are scientists going to start researching social skills?

Godwin was right., so... by antispam_ben · 2004-10-17 16:51 · Score: 1

... go to the next exciting /. article, "27 Year Anniversary of the Mattel Electronics Football Game"

--
Tag lost or not installed.

Ooooh! by pyth · 2004-10-17 19:19 · Score: 1

Let's use MAGIC, too!!!

Re:Ooooh! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 23:12 · Score: 0

Any sufficiently advanced technology IS indistinguishable from magic -A.Clarke, RIP

Slashdot Mirror

Nanotechnology To Replace Conventional CMOS

91 comments