Actually, we have been living in a very similar situation since home power-tools became
available. There is so much stuff you can make for yourself literally in minutes.
People in the eastern bloc actually lived a lot like that.
Food, electricity and housing (and a scarce collection of consumer goods)
were provided by the state, a lot of the rest was made at home.
They used to get blueprints for clothes they wanted and produce them
themselves.
It just gets problematic as long as there is any discernable difference
between the self-made product and a commercial alternative. Any
small defect in the self-made product will lead to a percieved lack of
value.
Otherwise, the economy will get more intellectual property based,
I guess.
BTW, power and water are already provided by the state in some
western countrys. Food and land though, not so much.
SNOM (Scanning Near-field scanning optical microscopes) can easily resolve images at 100 nm at
visible wavelengths and have done so for some years now. You can actually buy these microscopes
commercially.
I'm sure this new method is better than SNOM in some regard, or has the potential to be, but the resolution
they achieved is not really a "Nano Viewing Record". More a lens building record.
Non-optical methods like scanning force microscopy have resolved far better than
that for years now, of course. Albeit without the ability do do spectroscopic measurements.
Well let's hope that with the incredible power of a computer,
they can distinguish commercial space traffic from
global thermonuclear war.
Your typical first strike would involve lots of simultaneous
launches. And the trajectories of icbm's would be suspiciously suborbital.
Complicated equipment doing complicated pattern recognition. Built by the
lowest bidder. What could possibly go wrong...
Yes. You may note, that was my original point. Intel fielding them before AMD and the rest does is what the real news is about here.
Nevermind the tautology. I'm tired and drunk. Sorry.;-)
But a link to the inventors would have been... well... informative.
And the kind of FinFET technology used is more a matter of what is more effective in your semiconductor process.
Whether it's twingsate, trigate, quadgate, whatever.
There's a good chance what they published years ago is not all that similar to what they did for this.
Well, the original FinFETs were twingate (as were some similar transistors before the term FinFET was coined for them), intel invented trigate. In the end, this still is the first kind of FinFET coming to market.
I just think inventing them in the first place is more inventive then refining them.
My point of them having been quite a long time in the making still stands. Just note the age of that press release (2002).
Oh dear. They called them 3D-Transistors even back then.
What is indeed news is that intel is fielding them first.
Well, while it is nice a slashdot article has finally been written about FinFET's - there may
already have been one, I just can't remember - these devices have
been widely guessed to be a part of the 22 nm technology node for quite some time.
(see: http://www.itrs.net/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22_nanometer ).
They offer more effectivity for your gates as the field is not coming from one, but from
3 sides to the channel. That means a bit more scalability, but not much more. There is only a
bit of improvement possible for the future in putting the gate below the channel as well (as hard
as that may be, i, personally, don't think it would be worthwhile), so this won't save moore's law in the end.
It may not surprise you that they actually haven't been invented by intel, and are not new.
If you believe there is a valid military objective to be obtained here, then you shouldn't talk about Gitmo.
five posts further up
No, it would be better to live in a representative democracy with checks, balances and a centuries-long tradition of government accountability, the rule of law [...].
Shut up about it? Now that's a great tradition of rule of law if you ask me.
You know, laws and military objectives are not supposed to be contradictory.
Two parties, in a combined 10 year effort, with all checks and balances in place,
could not come up with a legal way of locking up and _interrogating_ their prisoners of war
short of keeping them on extrajudicial territory. That is pretty much a low for the united states.
And those politicians knew, at least after 9/11, that they would fight a war against terrorists.
Really sad to see that Nokia didn't have the confidence in their hardware design and manufacture skill to give Android a chance.
You know, lack of confidence can be a realistic assesment.
Nokia's has been notorious for their lack of precision in gap dimensions (i'm not sure if that is the correct term
as english is not my first language, and I'm not a mechanical engineer). As a result, stuff can get in front of
your display and ambient humidity can get to the electronics.
It's been this way for ages.
That was maybe acceptable 10 years ago. But today, as you can buy superbly assembled phones from chinese
and korean manufacturers, I think they won't be able to differentiate themselves from other android phones.
Thats a dumb argument, usually names are translated. I bet they don't call it "Microsoft Office" in Germany. Also the development team is English speaking for the most part.
Nope. It's called Microsoft Office pretty much everywhere in the world. That is the trick when you want
to establish a globally recognizable trademark. You find something that doesn't hurt your eyes in any
of the world's most important languages.
A typical developer can imho live with just about any old product name, that is why there have been
wacky code names since basically forever.
It's just that they don't change it to something useful when they release anymore.
And that's where GPL3 goes too far IMO. Sure, you'd like your iPad to be unlocked. But it isn't - so don't buy one. Would you rather that iPad users not be able to access Windows shares - to the benefit of Windows tablets and a potential monoculture?
Apple is a relatively wealthy corporation. They sell proprietary devices to great profit.
They can for sure afford to write - or fork - their own flavour of appropriately (for their needs)
licensed SMB-share interaction software.
Whatever one may think of the GPL v3 (I, personally, don't like some parts of it all that much),
it's not like Apple is entitled to use software whose writers specificaly chose to use a license
deliberately incompatible with their current business model.
Well, that's engineers for you. To them, humans are at best dirt in the machine.
Come on, no Real Engineer would consider you mere dirt. It's just that we have a
unique viewpoint on the human condition...
What still baffles the social, philosophical and economical sciences, what remains
a mystery even for biology, medicine, and - of course - theatre science, is awfully
plain to see with unnerving razor sharp clarity only when viewed from the eyes of a
properly trained engineer!
For me, for example, you are 100 pF and 1.5K of resistance to ground.
Slashdot Mirror
Big name publishers may be essential for great _looking_ articles.
A great article, though is usually not a matter of beauty.
Actually, we have been living in a very similar situation since home power-tools became available. There is so much stuff you can make for yourself literally in minutes.
People in the eastern bloc actually lived a lot like that. Food, electricity and housing (and a scarce collection of consumer goods) were provided by the state, a lot of the rest was made at home. They used to get blueprints for clothes they wanted and produce them themselves.
It just gets problematic as long as there is any discernable difference between the self-made product and a commercial alternative. Any small defect in the self-made product will lead to a percieved lack of value.
Otherwise, the economy will get more intellectual property based, I guess.
BTW, power and water are already provided by the state in some western countrys. Food and land though, not so much.
SNOM (Scanning Near-field scanning optical microscopes) can easily resolve images at 100 nm at visible wavelengths and have done so for some years now. You can actually buy these microscopes commercially. I'm sure this new method is better than SNOM in some regard, or has the potential to be, but the resolution they achieved is not really a "Nano Viewing Record". More a lens building record.
Non-optical methods like scanning force microscopy have resolved far better than that for years now, of course. Albeit without the ability do do spectroscopic measurements.
Interesting approach though.
Well let's hope that with the incredible power of a computer, they can distinguish commercial space traffic from global thermonuclear war.
Your typical first strike would involve lots of simultaneous launches. And the trajectories of icbm's would be suspiciously suborbital. Complicated equipment doing complicated pattern recognition. Built by the lowest bidder. What could possibly go wrong...
Yes. You may note, that was my original point. Intel fielding them before AMD and the rest does is what the real news is about here.
Nevermind the tautology. I'm tired and drunk. Sorry. ;-)
But a link to the inventors would have been ... well ... informative.
And the kind of FinFET technology used is more a matter of what is more effective in your semiconductor process. Whether it's twingsate, trigate, quadgate, whatever. There's a good chance what they published years ago is not all that similar to what they did for this.
Well, the original FinFETs were twingate (as were some similar transistors before the term FinFET was coined for them), intel invented trigate. In the end, this still is the first kind of FinFET coming to market.
I just think inventing them in the first place is more inventive then refining them.
My point of them having been quite a long time in the making still stands. Just note the age of that press release (2002).
Oh dear. They called them 3D-Transistors even back then.
What is indeed news is that intel is fielding them first.
Well, while it is nice a slashdot article has finally been written about FinFET's - there may already have been one, I just can't remember - these devices have been widely guessed to be a part of the 22 nm technology node for quite some time. (see: http://www.itrs.net/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22_nanometer ).
They offer more effectivity for your gates as the field is not coming from one, but from 3 sides to the channel. That means a bit more scalability, but not much more. There is only a bit of improvement possible for the future in putting the gate below the channel as well (as hard as that may be, i, personally, don't think it would be worthwhile), so this won't save moore's law in the end.
It may not surprise you that they actually haven't been invented by intel, and are not new.
The term has been coined more than 10 years ago ( http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=823848 ) (find one of the free pdf's of this classic paper for yourself)
What is more interesting is how far down these transistors will scale in the extreme ultraviolet processes that are emerging right now.
Do you really believe what you said there?
If you believe there is a valid military objective to be obtained here, then you shouldn't talk about Gitmo.
five posts further up
No, it would be better to live in a representative democracy with checks, balances and a centuries-long tradition of government accountability, the rule of law [...].
Shut up about it? Now that's a great tradition of rule of law if you ask me.
You know, laws and military objectives are not supposed to be contradictory. Two parties, in a combined 10 year effort, with all checks and balances in place, could not come up with a legal way of locking up and _interrogating_ their prisoners of war short of keeping them on extrajudicial territory. That is pretty much a low for the united states.
And those politicians knew, at least after 9/11, that they would fight a war against terrorists.
Really sad to see that Nokia didn't have the confidence in their hardware design and manufacture skill to give Android a chance.
You know, lack of confidence can be a realistic assesment.
Nokia's has been notorious for their lack of precision in gap dimensions (i'm not sure if that is the correct term as english is not my first language, and I'm not a mechanical engineer). As a result, stuff can get in front of your display and ambient humidity can get to the electronics.
It's been this way for ages.
That was maybe acceptable 10 years ago. But today, as you can buy superbly assembled phones from chinese and korean manufacturers, I think they won't be able to differentiate themselves from other android phones.
In a positive sense, at least.
Thats a dumb argument, usually names are translated. I bet they don't call it "Microsoft Office" in Germany. Also the development team is English speaking for the most part.
Nope. It's called Microsoft Office pretty much everywhere in the world. That is the trick when you want to establish a globally recognizable trademark. You find something that doesn't hurt your eyes in any of the world's most important languages.
A typical developer can imho live with just about any old product name, that is why there have been wacky code names since basically forever.
It's just that they don't change it to something useful when they release anymore.
And that's where GPL3 goes too far IMO. Sure, you'd like your iPad to be unlocked. But it isn't - so don't buy one. Would you rather that iPad users not be able to access Windows shares - to the benefit of Windows tablets and a potential monoculture?
I see what you did there.
Apple is a relatively wealthy corporation. They sell proprietary devices to great profit. They can for sure afford to write - or fork - their own flavour of appropriately (for their needs) licensed SMB-share interaction software.
Whatever one may think of the GPL v3 (I, personally, don't like some parts of it all that much), it's not like Apple is entitled to use software whose writers specificaly chose to use a license deliberately incompatible with their current business model.
Where do I sign up?
Here, I guess.
Well, that's engineers for you. To them, humans are at best dirt in the machine.
Come on, no Real Engineer would consider you mere dirt. It's just that we have a unique viewpoint on the human condition...
What still baffles the social, philosophical and economical sciences, what remains a mystery even for biology, medicine, and - of course - theatre science, is awfully plain to see with unnerving razor sharp clarity only when viewed from the eyes of a properly trained engineer!
For me, for example, you are 100 pF and 1.5K of resistance to ground.