Obviously, you havent heard about hempcar, a 1984 diesel Benz modified to run on hemp oil. They plan to take it on a trip around the US and some of Canada.
I bet it will take a long time. They'll have to stop to get potato chips and Oreos every couple of blocks.
"Hey, man, can we, like, stop for some munchies again?"
The technology in the new chip is not as new as everybody is pretending it is. Yes, everybody likes to think that small size means tunneling and violates some law of quantum mechanics they heard somewhere. It's all crap, I say. Tunneling effects won't be important until you reach barrier widths of around 50 Angstroms. The uncertainty principle is much stranger than you think, and they are currently working on a single electron transistor (strange, but true, and does not violate any quantum mechanics).
First, the small feature size quoted in the article has been researched for years. The main problem was the RC time delay. By cramming the devices so close together, the capacitance of the interconnects increased (remember, C~1/d). Since Al is usually used as an interconnect material (it plays nice with Si), there is a very high resistance (Al has 5x the resistivity of Cu) in traditional chips. That's why they started researching other materials, especially copper. Look up the dual damascene process for copper metalization, you will see the challenges involved. It's just exciting to see the small feature size finally released commercially. It means the technology is finally out of the research stage.
In crystal growth, it was nice to hear some discussion of the 12-inch "John Holmes" wafer.
Look at the subscription prices on the inside of a typical journal. Since they don't advertise, they charge outrageous amounts. Some journals cost $400 an issue (I'm thinking of things like the Physical Review journals). These people have HUGE operating costs.
Second, the poster was not correct in stating that scientists submit articles for free. It costs quite a bit of money to submit a paper. (Again, cost depends on the journal, but I've seen pricetags around $400.) But, that's why we have grants.
These kind of threats by industry groups to prevent the publication of scientific papers that may injure their public image or some foothold in the market is not new. I heard a man named Robert Park speak a year ago. He is a professor (physics, I think, but I can't remember where he teaches) and a writer, and this talk was one of a series of lectures to promote his latest book, "Voodoo Science." After the lecture, there was to be a brief book signing. Unfortunately, lawsuits were preventing the release of the book (libel).
Dr. Park said that these kind of law suits are common, but the courts have a history of releasing academic material in an effort to protect a free exchange of ideas.
The DMCA has so far only protected the rights of big business. The courts have a history of supporting free exchange of ideas. I have faith in our courts. I hope this is not misplaced.
I hope Professor Felten et. al. fight this tooth and nail. Princeton has a legal department, and this is Princeton's fight. I hope they stand behind the professor.
If somebody were to buy this book, create an electronic copy, and freely distribute it, would Dr. Litman or Prometheus Books file charges of copyright infringement?
I am a little put out by the fact that I had to use somebody else's computer to see the movie. I complain to the Sorenson people annually, and I think everybody who does not use Macintosh or Windows should do so as well. The instructions for complaining are on the xanim page.
This article has
a few more facts about this technology, and its references are from journals
like "Science" and "Applied Physics Letters" and "Chemical Review," so you can
do some in-depth research if you wish. It's not so complicated that the layman
could not read it, and it has some information not covered in the
howstuffworks.com article. I did like some of the pictures in the
howstuffworks.com article.
The electron mobility in polymers is MUCH lower than Si (a slow semiconductor),
a fact that is mentioned in the article, but glossed over on this page.
Overclocking these guys still won't get you very far.
One thing not mentioned is the short shelf life of these things. They tend to
degrade in days to weeks, depending on the material.
I could go on, but I won't. I'm just glad to see this finally out in the popular media.
Perhaps this goes a bit left, and perhaps I am preaching to the choir. Technological secrets have only helped the power elite, the guys with the money. As a graduate student in an engineering discipline, I cannot tell you how many times I needed secret information to write a paper or complete a project. This problem slows a lot of research, as scientists re-invent the wheel.
This is why the patent system was begun; it was an incentive to share ideas.
No. To begin, I do not know what assumptions you used to arrive at those numbers. I cannot argue them until I know these things. However, I can give a counterexample to your claim: the single electron transistor.
You should go to the library and do some research on the single electron transistor. Go to a university library and look in some professional journals (Physical Review B is usually where things like that get published) because it is not a topic that appears in the popular press.
Every technological improvement mentioned by the author (the internal combustion engine, the light bulb, the electric motor, the telephone, the flush toilet, refrigeration, cathode ray tube) was developed in the 19th century. The fact is that it took decades for new technology to change the lives of the general public.
Consider the cathode ray tube (CRT), the guts of the television. J.J. Thompson invented the CRT in 1897, but it was not until nearly 30 years later that the television was invented. However, as Mr. Longman pointed out, it was not common for families to have a television in the 1950s. It was not until the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 that it became clear that the nation had changed due to television. This is a time gap of 6 decades from invention to revolution. Why is he expecting a shorter time for the transistor (invented 1948) or the integrated circuit (invented 1957)?
He likes to discuss time and efficiency as tests for new technology. Specifically, the telegraph reduced the time to send a message across the Atlantic from weeks to minutes. The telephone, another of his favorites (he used words like "deprived" and "stifled" to describe a house without one), fails this test. To be fair, the reproduction of a voice at the other end is amazing, but does not make for significantly faster communication over an automated telegraph (one that translates the morse code into letters typed on a paper tape). Why does he speak so highly of the telephone?
The problem with this article is that Mr. Longman is not well educated in technology. Mr. Longman incorrectly identified the time period in which most of the technological improvements mentioned were invented. He failed to mention the transistor or the integrated circuit. His test for "super-inventiveness" was not applied fairly to all technologies mentioned.
Why did Mr. Longman write this article? How did it get published? It is a hodge podge of pseudo-fact mixed with a contemptuous nostalgia for the days when we had an infinite supply of fossil fuels, the population explosion was a good thing, cigarettes had essential vitamins and nutrients, and emphysema was a part of growing old.
For an even more obscure fact, the space shuttle, which hasn't been remodeled in over 20 years, still runs on 4-bit Intel processors. (I would like to say it is the 4044.)
Slashdot Mirror
I bet it will take a long time. They'll have to stop to get potato chips and Oreos every couple of blocks.
"Hey, man, can we, like, stop for some munchies again?"
The technology in the new chip is not as new as everybody is pretending it is. Yes, everybody likes to think that small size means tunneling and violates some law of quantum mechanics they heard somewhere. It's all crap, I say. Tunneling effects won't be important until you reach barrier widths of around 50 Angstroms. The uncertainty principle is much stranger than you think, and they are currently working on a single electron transistor (strange, but true, and does not violate any quantum mechanics).
First, the small feature size quoted in the article has been researched for years. The main problem was the RC time delay. By cramming the devices so close together, the capacitance of the interconnects increased (remember, C~1/d). Since Al is usually used as an interconnect material (it plays nice with Si), there is a very high resistance (Al has 5x the resistivity of Cu) in traditional chips. That's why they started researching other materials, especially copper. Look up the dual damascene process for copper metalization, you will see the challenges involved. It's just exciting to see the small feature size finally released commercially. It means the technology is finally out of the research stage.
In crystal growth, it was nice to hear some discussion of the 12-inch "John Holmes" wafer.
Look at the subscription prices on the inside of a typical journal. Since they don't advertise, they charge outrageous amounts. Some journals cost $400 an issue (I'm thinking of things like the Physical Review journals). These people have HUGE operating costs.
Second, the poster was not correct in stating that scientists submit articles for free. It costs quite a bit of money to submit a paper. (Again, cost depends on the journal, but I've seen pricetags around $400.) But, that's why we have grants.
These kind of threats by industry groups to prevent the publication of scientific papers that may injure their public image or some foothold in the market is not new. I heard a man named Robert Park speak a year ago. He is a professor (physics, I think, but I can't remember where he teaches) and a writer, and this talk was one of a series of lectures to promote his latest book, "Voodoo Science." After the lecture, there was to be a brief book signing. Unfortunately, lawsuits were preventing the release of the book (libel).
Dr. Park said that these kind of law suits are common, but the courts have a history of releasing academic material in an effort to protect a free exchange of ideas.
The DMCA has so far only protected the rights of big business. The courts have a history of supporting free exchange of ideas. I have faith in our courts. I hope this is not misplaced.
I hope Professor Felten et. al. fight this tooth and nail. Princeton has a legal department, and this is Princeton's fight. I hope they stand behind the professor.
If somebody were to buy this book, create an electronic copy, and freely distribute it, would Dr. Litman or Prometheus Books file charges of copyright infringement?
Brains, he's talking about human brains. They are grey, and the volume inside your skull is more or less 1 liter (in your case, probably less).
I am a little put out by the fact that I had to use somebody else's computer to see the movie. I complain to the Sorenson people annually, and I think everybody who does not use Macintosh or Windows should do so as well. The instructions for complaining are on the xanim page.
This article has a few more facts about this technology, and its references are from journals like "Science" and "Applied Physics Letters" and "Chemical Review," so you can do some in-depth research if you wish. It's not so complicated that the layman could not read it, and it has some information not covered in the howstuffworks.com article. I did like some of the pictures in the howstuffworks.com article.
The electron mobility in polymers is MUCH lower than Si (a slow semiconductor), a fact that is mentioned in the article, but glossed over on this page. Overclocking these guys still won't get you very far.
One thing not mentioned is the short shelf life of these things. They tend to degrade in days to weeks, depending on the material.
I could go on, but I won't. I'm just glad to see this finally out in the popular media.
Perhaps this goes a bit left, and perhaps I am preaching to the choir. Technological secrets have only helped the power elite, the guys with the money. As a graduate student in an engineering discipline, I cannot tell you how many times I needed secret information to write a paper or complete a project. This problem slows a lot of research, as scientists re-invent the wheel.
This is why the patent system was begun; it was an incentive to share ideas.
Maybe one day we will reverse engineer Coca-Cola.
Some are worse, almost as bad as Windows users.
Of course, if we use plexiglass cases, we can block alpha particles. Let me know if you are able to find a lead codpiece.
No. To begin, I do not know what assumptions you used to arrive at those numbers. I cannot argue them until I know these things. However, I can give a counterexample to your claim: the single electron transistor.
You should go to the library and do some research on the single electron transistor. Go to a university library and look in some professional journals (Physical Review B is usually where things like that get published) because it is not a topic that appears in the popular press.
Every technological improvement mentioned by the author (the internal combustion engine, the light bulb, the electric motor, the telephone, the flush toilet, refrigeration, cathode ray tube) was developed in the 19th century. The fact is that it took decades for new technology to change the lives of the general public.
Consider the cathode ray tube (CRT), the guts of the television. J.J. Thompson invented the CRT in 1897, but it was not until nearly 30 years later that the television was invented. However, as Mr. Longman pointed out, it was not common for families to have a television in the 1950s. It was not until the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 that it became clear that the nation had changed due to television. This is a time gap of 6 decades from invention to revolution. Why is he expecting a shorter time for the transistor (invented 1948) or the integrated circuit (invented 1957)?
He likes to discuss time and efficiency as tests for new technology. Specifically, the telegraph reduced the time to send a message across the Atlantic from weeks to minutes. The telephone, another of his favorites (he used words like "deprived" and "stifled" to describe a house without one), fails this test. To be fair, the reproduction of a voice at the other end is amazing, but does not make for significantly faster communication over an automated telegraph (one that translates the morse code into letters typed on a paper tape). Why does he speak so highly of the telephone?
The problem with this article is that Mr. Longman is not well educated in technology. Mr. Longman incorrectly identified the time period in which most of the technological improvements mentioned were invented. He failed to mention the transistor or the integrated circuit. His test for "super-inventiveness" was not applied fairly to all technologies mentioned.
Why did Mr. Longman write this article? How did it get published? It is a hodge podge of pseudo-fact mixed with a contemptuous nostalgia for the days when we had an infinite supply of fossil fuels, the population explosion was a good thing, cigarettes had essential vitamins and nutrients, and emphysema was a part of growing old.
Please do not confuse light bulbs and LEDs. There is a vast technological gap.
For an even more obscure fact, the space shuttle, which hasn't been remodeled in over 20 years, still runs on 4-bit Intel processors. (I would like to say it is the 4044.)