I'm just waiting for the day when Intel and AMD will be competing on not the number of cores in the CPU, but the number of circuit layers on their 3D chip.
Kudos for adding a link to the original research article. Not a lot of blogs, news sites, etc. do this.
BTW the supporting information to the article is available free of charge (nitty - gritty experimental details). (This is common among paywalled articles)
By combining forces, Oracle and ATG expect to help businesses grow revenue, strengthen customer loyalty, improve brand value, achieve better operating results, and increase business agility across online and traditional commerce environments...
I just wish they cared this much for the Open Office brand. Oh, wait that doesn't make money for Mr. Shareholder. Too bad.
For me the exciting part is that, we can actually try to have a decent estimate for some of the terms in the Drake equation.
A hint to the answer of just how improbable (or probable) abiogenesis is, may be found right here in our solar system. By searching for life on Mars, Europa, etc.
Just another reason not to slash the NASA budget.
Yes. Welcome to the 21st century, where more and more power can be concentrated in the hands of smaller and smaller groups of people. For better and for worse.
If medical research were really as close-to-useless as The Fine Summary claims, we'd be hardly better off with modern Western medicine than with homeopathy and prayer.
True.
Top notch research is what makes all the medical breakthroughs, but this is only the top few percent of ALL medical research. IMHO one of the main reasons there are so much bogus papers out there is because of the publish or perish attitude in academia, which requires researchers to have a set number of papers published to be eligible for research funding, tenure, other career advancements. I know from experience (although not in medical research, but natural sciences) that sometimes you have to publish a paper even if you know that the results aren't meaningful, or of value to anyone. Then there are people who publish things that were not subjected to rigorous testing, double checking of data, etc. which can easily turn out to be wrong. Lastly there are the cheats. All I'm trying to say is that it's more of a science policy problem than a problem with the integrity of researchers. If the number of publications has to go up, then their quality will surely decrease. Very few research groups (the ones which have good funding) have the luxury of publishing only every now and then. But when they do it's usually a Science or Nature paper. This problem os quality VS quantity is most serious in China. However, not even journals such as Nature are immune to this.
I work in research and you can't imagine how much low hanging fruit there is. My former adviser used to say that he would need to have an army of students, grad students, etc. do do all the neat things that we don't have enough time for. It's a bit frustrating actually.
I agree with you. To put it in a broader perspective, technology is a tool. It can be used for bad or good purposes, with differing degrees of positive or negative impact). This is true for every form of technology, not just high tech things. An axe can be used to chop down a tree and it can just as easily be a murder weapon. The same with biotech. Technological progress needs to matched by moral progress so the should we? question can be put forward with glowing red lights, especially in cases where the negative impact can be severe
Having said this, I don't think garage biotech poses a big threat. They're nowhere near the point where they can genetically engineer organisms and especially not for dangerous purposes.
Biotech as a whole is another matter altogether. Putting aside the zombie apocalypse scenarios, it has the potential to fundamentally change our society, and not necessarily for the better. Personally, I'm more concerned about this than my neighbor incubating his E-coli under his armpit. The more people talk and debate about its implications the better.
I would love some input on this from./ folks who are into this thing, or work in the biotech field.
Civilizations thrive and prosper if there are plenty of cheap resources and energy available. The more of it the better. Right now we're heading for a shock in energy prices, so any creative idea, initiative is certainly welcome. "Depopulation" (whatever that means) has a dark side as well. Just watch Japan in the coming decades. They certainly aren't having lots of children. If they don't build a population of robots/cyborgs, whatever to support them, in a few decades they will have a crippled economy full of old people. While I can be accused of not looking at the big picture here (like centuries), the best thing we can do is to maintain the population level. And while efficiency is certainly welcome in places (why the hell is the US using so much energy with almost identical living standards?), we will not need less, but more cheap energy in the future.
I happen to work in this field and I think the prize is well deserved. Ever since the 2004 - 2005 papers of these guys the number of peer reviewed, graphene related publications has grown exponentially every year. So they have had (and still have) a major impact on physics, not counting all the possible applications of this material.
Although graphene was observed in various experiments in the 70s, these guys have realized its true potential. Furthermore, the discovery came in just the right moment in (scientific) history, where we have the sophisticated tools to study this material. No use inventing the spaceship in the middle ages (if you pardon the crude analogy).
At the University of Maryland they have levitated graphene flakes. Although this was not diamagnetic levitation. The story was discussed in an earlier/. post.HOPG (Highly Ordered Pyrolytic Graphite), a form of highly crystalline graphite, from which graphene is obtained in the lab, can also be diamagnetically levitated:)
Separating rare earths out of electronics waste is actually not that difficult: hit it with acid; do some basic purification first to get rid of Fe, Cu and a few other "usual suspects"; after that ion exchange chromatography does the deed.
Separating them from other stuff is easy, usually because these elements are very reactive. Separating them from each other is another, much harder task. Actually, using ion exchange chromatography I doubt you can get tonnes of chemically pure metal. You need a lot of fancy chemistry. Actually this is the most polluting part of the industrial process and one of the contributing factors to closing US and European refining plants.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just waiting for the day when Intel and AMD will be competing on not the number of cores in the CPU, but the number of circuit layers on their 3D chip.
as to, why aren't they planning on using solar thermal plants? Like this project.
If anybody cares to read it, a preprint of the whole article can be found here.
... you are not representing yourself anymore, you are representing your cause...
That could easily have come from Gandhi himself. I wish I had mod points for you.
More fun facts: Some people have made carbon nanotubes from grass.
welcome the new and improved pirate version.
Good fileshaRRRing mates!
Find it here.
Kudos for adding a link to the original research article. Not a lot of blogs, news sites, etc. do this. BTW the supporting information to the article is available free of charge (nitty - gritty experimental details). (This is common among paywalled articles)
Here's a TED talk from Alan Russell on the methods and details of this technology.
By combining forces, Oracle and ATG expect to help businesses grow revenue, strengthen customer loyalty, improve brand value, achieve better operating results, and increase business agility across online and traditional commerce environments...
I just wish they cared this much for the Open Office brand. Oh, wait that doesn't make money for Mr. Shareholder. Too bad.
For me the exciting part is that, we can actually try to have a decent estimate for some of the terms in the Drake equation. A hint to the answer of just how improbable (or probable) abiogenesis is, may be found right here in our solar system. By searching for life on Mars, Europa, etc. Just another reason not to slash the NASA budget.
Yes. Welcome to the 21st century, where more and more power can be concentrated in the hands of smaller and smaller groups of people. For better and for worse.
This is exactly what's happening right now in the so called BRIC nations. I don't know if it will be a drawback if the scenario in TFA unfolds.
Not that I don't like being modded up, but come on guys, this is not Insightful. It's +5 Obvious :)
This means that soon the 1 and 2 TB drives will be cheaper. I was waiting for this to upgrade my external storage.
A real close call was this.
If medical research were really as close-to-useless as The Fine Summary claims, we'd be hardly better off with modern Western medicine than with homeopathy and prayer.
True.
Top notch research is what makes all the medical breakthroughs, but this is only the top few percent of ALL medical research. IMHO one of the main reasons there are so much bogus papers out there is because of the publish or perish attitude in academia, which requires researchers to have a set number of papers published to be eligible for research funding, tenure, other career advancements. I know from experience (although not in medical research, but natural sciences) that sometimes you have to publish a paper even if you know that the results aren't meaningful, or of value to anyone. Then there are people who publish things that were not subjected to rigorous testing, double checking of data, etc. which can easily turn out to be wrong. Lastly there are the cheats. All I'm trying to say is that it's more of a science policy problem than a problem with the integrity of researchers. If the number of publications has to go up, then their quality will surely decrease. Very few research groups (the ones which have good funding) have the luxury of publishing only every now and then. But when they do it's usually a Science or Nature paper. This problem os quality VS quantity is most serious in China. However, not even journals such as Nature are immune to this.
I work in research and you can't imagine how much low hanging fruit there is. My former adviser used to say that he would need to have an army of students, grad students, etc. do do all the neat things that we don't have enough time for. It's a bit frustrating actually.
Having said this, I don't think garage biotech poses a big threat. They're nowhere near the point where they can genetically engineer organisms and especially not for dangerous purposes.
Biotech as a whole is another matter altogether. Putting aside the zombie apocalypse scenarios, it has the potential to fundamentally change our society, and not necessarily for the better. Personally, I'm more concerned about this than my neighbor incubating his E-coli under his armpit. The more people talk and debate about its implications the better.
I would love some input on this from ./ folks who are into this thing, or work in the biotech field.
Civilizations thrive and prosper if there are plenty of cheap resources and energy available. The more of it the better. Right now we're heading for a shock in energy prices, so any creative idea, initiative is certainly welcome. "Depopulation" (whatever that means) has a dark side as well. Just watch Japan in the coming decades. They certainly aren't having lots of children. If they don't build a population of robots/cyborgs, whatever to support them, in a few decades they will have a crippled economy full of old people. While I can be accused of not looking at the big picture here (like centuries), the best thing we can do is to maintain the population level. And while efficiency is certainly welcome in places (why the hell is the US using so much energy with almost identical living standards?), we will not need less, but more cheap energy in the future.
Let's hope that, with so many other technologies developed by the military, some of it finds its way into everyday use.
You're absolutely right. People probably create some trace amounts of graphene every time they draw with a pencil :)
Although graphene was observed in various experiments in the 70s, these guys have realized its true potential. Furthermore, the discovery came in just the right moment in (scientific) history, where we have the sophisticated tools to study this material. No use inventing the spaceship in the middle ages (if you pardon the crude analogy).
At the University of Maryland they have levitated graphene flakes. Although this was not diamagnetic levitation. The story was discussed in an earlier /. post.
HOPG (Highly Ordered Pyrolytic Graphite), a form of highly crystalline graphite, from which graphene is obtained in the lab, can also be diamagnetically levitated :)
Separating rare earths out of electronics waste is actually not that difficult: hit it with acid; do some basic purification first to get rid of Fe, Cu and a few other "usual suspects"; after that ion exchange chromatography does the deed.
Separating them from other stuff is easy, usually because these elements are very reactive. Separating them from each other is another, much harder task. Actually, using ion exchange chromatography I doubt you can get tonnes of chemically pure metal. You need a lot of fancy chemistry. Actually this is the most polluting part of the industrial process and one of the contributing factors to closing US and European refining plants.