The issue is not so much that some are being "wasted". The problem is selecting the ones you want. How do you automate that? You have a process that gives you lots and lots of nanotubes. How do you automatically filter out the ones you want? That's been the problem since day 1, and has not been resolved.
I've been hearing this claim every few years for the last 25. Remember optical computers in the mid-80s? How about gallium arsenide? CRAY-3 anyone? While GaAs has not replaced silicon for computer CPU's, it has some applications (non-optical ones) that Si cannot compete with. Cell phones, for example.
Like all new technologies the REAL cost is the in manufacturing and the cost goes down once we've manufactured enough of it to refine the process until we know the cheapest and quickest ways to do it. Cost is not the main problem with nanotubes.
Nanotubes have a certain chirality - denoted by (m,n) with m and n being integers. Those two numbers define the properties of the nanotube (e.g. if m-n is a multiple of 3, the nanotube is metallic - otherwise it is semiconducting). They also determine the radius.
So far no one has come up with a way to get a nanotube of a certain chirality. They just synthesize many nanotubes and then pick manually the ones they want - if it exists in the sample. Until they can do this, the nanotube industry will not become a reality.
1. MIT is not all that there is. Hit all the big name schools: Stanford, Berkeley, CMU, Ann Arbor, Georgia Tech, Urbana-Champaign all come to mind. Some are significantly cheaper, and others may give you a scholarship.
2. When trying to get funding, don't limit yourself to FOSS organizations (why would you do that?). Apply to any and all scholarships where your profile matches what they want.
Extra Bonus point: Whether you go to MIT or elsewhere, always keep your own standards on what you should be learning, and don't simply yield to those of the schools. Getting straight A's doesn't mean you're learning much. And talk a lot with intelligent peers - they'll dictate your standards far more than the professors or the institutions (I learned that a bit late).
When was the last time you saw a cat walking in the park next to its master, or rounding up a heard of sheep, or allowing blind people to safely cross the road, or sniffing drugs out at an airport? etc. Let's see. If I trained you to roll over and play dead for some raw meat, everyone would think you're dumb.
but you may argue that they have produced evidence that supports the theory. No, you can't.
Without knowing the details of both theories, it's hard for me to judge. Basically, if their formalism is more or less isomorphic to Hawking's (without their realizing it) - then all they've done is do Hawking's work over again.
If they used independent formalism to get Hawking radiation, then it's a good sign, and shows that their theory is consistent with Hawking's (and perhaps later someone will link the two).
In either case, they did not produce any evidence. At best, they're saying, "If you look at this our way, it is consistent with what Hawking predicted."
It seems like every time the kernel updates, the drivers fail. Why are you updating kernels?
I don't really know the Ubuntu way - I use Gentoo. And I never upgrade to a new kernel unless I have to. Upgrading to a new kernel version is a bit of a mess. You have to recompile a number of modules/drivers. Perhaps it's not as messy in a binary based distribution, but I'm just not sure it's a great idea...
Don't load up operating systems with features and then make us sweat to figure out how to get rid of the fat... There's another solution available to consumers: Switch to a Linux-based OS such as Ubuntu. Since most Linux OSs are free, there's no business reason to bloat up the system with feature frills.'" I don't see Ubuntu being a "better" solution in this regard. One can also make Ubuntu highly bloated. As the article mentions, one can reduce the Windows bloat by de-selecting options. How is Ubuntu inherently better in this regard?
Please show this to anyone from the Middle East, Pakistan, India, and North African countries. They'll likely do the same.
In those countries engineering and medicine are highly over-represented. Whereas here one may be confined to McDonalds if one gets a social science/liberal art degree, over there most of them will remove themselves from the gene pool by starving.
So no - this does not at all come as a surprise to me. I'd be surprised if it were otherwise.
Now I'll admit I read only the abstract. But they did not address this point there.
Don't know if this had been pointed out already. Over 300 comments that I don't want to read.
Original complaint was that there was poor email etiquette. Someone suggested using Gmail, because its Web interface was good at solving some of these problems. I pointed out that while Gmail has its pluses, there are problems with its Web interface. I keep getting told that one can use POP/IMAP. Which negates the need for Gmail for the original complainant.
Of course one can use any client if he has IMAP/POP. But one can do that with any mail service that provides IMAP. One can do that on the company's own servers. Who needs Gmail here?
In particular google scholar rocks. Maybe they've gotten better, but I (very) occasionally find articles that are in the older journal search databases but not in Google Scholar.
Matlab syntax is completely intuitive, provided you bother to learn the syntax. I've known plenty of people who came to Matlab, hated it, but then after a couple months started to love it. I came from the MATLAB world, and learned Python, and then NumPy/SciPy.
The original poster is correct. Python/NumPy syntax is more natural than MATLAB's. Much more so.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is not so much that some are being "wasted". The problem is selecting the ones you want. How do you automate that? You have a process that gives you lots and lots of nanotubes. How do you automatically filter out the ones you want? That's been the problem since day 1, and has not been resolved.
However, the record for fastest transistor has been held by III-V based transistors (i.e. not silicon) for a few years now. See this, for example.
So the article's not all that wrong.
Nanotubes have a certain chirality - denoted by (m,n) with m and n being integers. Those two numbers define the properties of the nanotube (e.g. if m-n is a multiple of 3, the nanotube is metallic - otherwise it is semiconducting). They also determine the radius.
So far no one has come up with a way to get a nanotube of a certain chirality. They just synthesize many nanotubes and then pick manually the ones they want - if it exists in the sample. Until they can do this, the nanotube industry will not become a reality.
Two points:
1. MIT is not all that there is. Hit all the big name schools: Stanford, Berkeley, CMU, Ann Arbor, Georgia Tech, Urbana-Champaign all come to mind. Some are significantly cheaper, and others may give you a scholarship.
2. When trying to get funding, don't limit yourself to FOSS organizations (why would you do that?). Apply to any and all scholarships where your profile matches what they want.
Extra Bonus point: Whether you go to MIT or elsewhere, always keep your own standards on what you should be learning, and don't simply yield to those of the schools. Getting straight A's doesn't mean you're learning much. And talk a lot with intelligent peers - they'll dictate your standards far more than the professors or the institutions (I learned that a bit late).
I switched from KDE to FluxBox back in 2003.
Then a year later switched to FVWM (FVWM-Crystal, to be precise).
Never gone back.
For me, KDE and Gnome are too inflexible, and at times quite bloated.
I really wish people would consider other options. There are lots of window managers out there - some with quite a bit of eye candy without the bloat.
I will miss his insights. He was always my favorite science fiction author.
Let's remember him by his (last?) appearance on video 3 months ago on his birthday.
Cats are smarter. They know better.
That's a royal pain.
Just use the CookieSafe addon in Firefox. Will make your browsing infinitely easier, with no loss in flexibility.
Without knowing the details of both theories, it's hard for me to judge. Basically, if their formalism is more or less isomorphic to Hawking's (without their realizing it) - then all they've done is do Hawking's work over again.
If they used independent formalism to get Hawking radiation, then it's a good sign, and shows that their theory is consistent with Hawking's (and perhaps later someone will link the two).
In either case, they did not produce any evidence. At best, they're saying, "If you look at this our way, it is consistent with what Hawking predicted."
I don't really know the Ubuntu way - I use Gentoo. And I never upgrade to a new kernel unless I have to. Upgrading to a new kernel version is a bit of a mess. You have to recompile a number of modules/drivers. Perhaps it's not as messy in a binary based distribution, but I'm just not sure it's a great idea...
When I read this, I laughed hard. Really hard.
Please show this to anyone from the Middle East, Pakistan, India, and North African countries. They'll likely do the same.
In those countries engineering and medicine are highly over-represented. Whereas here one may be confined to McDonalds if one gets a social science/liberal art degree, over there most of them will remove themselves from the gene pool by starving.
So no - this does not at all come as a surprise to me. I'd be surprised if it were otherwise.
Now I'll admit I read only the abstract. But they did not address this point there.
Don't know if this had been pointed out already. Over 300 comments that I don't want to read.
We seem to be going in circles.
Original complaint was that there was poor email etiquette.
Someone suggested using Gmail, because its Web interface was good at solving some of these problems.
I pointed out that while Gmail has its pluses, there are problems with its Web interface.
I keep getting told that one can use POP/IMAP.
Which negates the need for Gmail for the original complainant.
Of course one can use any client if he has IMAP/POP. But one can do that with any mail service that provides IMAP. One can do that on the company's own servers. Who needs Gmail here?
It shows promise, but it is still currently lacking. It does not, for example, support PGP/MIME...
Which, if you did, would not solve the problem of this whole "news" item - poor quoting practices.
PGP via gmail is a pain. They don't have any inherent support for it.
Let's hope this one doesn't head for the Earth.
It's quite easy to write the bottleneck in C/FORTRAN and incorporate that into a Python module.
The original poster is correct. Python/NumPy syntax is more natural than MATLAB's. Much more so.
The original post was about not being able to view binary attachments. If you're forwarding X11, then that's not an issue.
Well, if it's automated and still saves them into different files, I won't complain. I've never had anything against labels.