Oh, wait - the machine it connects up to would be a large mainframe that runs 1/2 the speed of the slowest PC, and written entirely in COBOL - I forget these things about the stogy old banks we know and love.
On the other hand, how often does that mainframe crash? People forget that mainframes...
I think the poster with the COBOL comment was making fun of the bits in the article referring to a "more open" platform (Windows):
They would prefer Windows, a platform they consider "open" in that it is compatible with their internal corporate networks.
AT&T local service used to bombard me with three and four phone calls per day.
I used to have the same problem, and also put a lot of effort into trying to make them stop. I switched phone companies, and intentionally went without cable TV and fast internet (both AT&T-only in my old building) for a year as a direct result.
Their telephone harassment was particularly egregious. I've been AT&T-free for three years, and plan to continue to be.
Engineers skeptically thought that the energy required for the refridgeration [sic] was way more than the losses with conventional wiring.
Bzzt! Wrong. The energy saved by eliminating resistive losses in power transmission cables would be far greater than that used to keep superconducting lines cold.
This has been demonstrated. The major scientific and engineering issue at the moment is developing the manufacture of superconducting cables to the point that they are cheap enough to buy.
...For this reason, some researchers feel that it is premature to describe the set- up as a battery.
Also, the title is misleading. "Nano Power for Nano Devices Patented" sounds like the idea of having any power for nano devices has been patented. It's not that. The researchers have simply come up with a method to produce a structure that could be used for the purpose. There are undoubtedly numerous other ways of achieving this same goal. They're just one of the first reporting one to the mainstream press.
Just because diamond has higher thermal conductivity doesn't mean that it can magically solve all of our problems...without knowing what kind of carrier mobilities can be acheived...
You're right that we know little about diamond. But, if inexpensive diamond substrates become available for research (e.g., as suggested by the article), then we can learn the answers to those questions. It's something many researchers want to study, but can't for lack of material.
says JJ, "There are a bunch of problems that using a diamond substrate for semiconductors would pose. I mean for one thing, not being a metal but instead a crystal, the resistance to currents is magnitudes greater than for silicon. I agree the thermal properties are grea, but can the other issues be resolved? Long way off folks. "
No, no, no.
Silicon wafers are (single) crystal.
the resistivity of diamond is magnitudes lower than silicon
but the CONFIDENTIAL documents are all marked "CONFIDENTIAL until xxx 2002" or "CONFIDENTIAL until xxx 2001." Not such a gaping security hole, it seems.
Yes, the potential implications of RFID are creepy, but their planning for a marketing campaign sounds pretty much par for the course.
Please ignore the parent of this post (the one with F=ma, etc.). If you've got some mod points, please mod it down, or at least label it as "Funny" because just about everything in it is dead WRONG.
Going over all the made-up physics would just waste space. Please mod it down! (and me up):-P
The "I get to pick and choose what comments I respond to, and I get the last word at the end, so nyeah!" section at the bottom reveals this article for what it is â" flamebait.
alot of people are replying that they wouldn't want the phone making the decisions for them, spending their money. Over time, this is exactly what is going to happen. The article says people will have to confirm the choices until the give teh power to the phone. The idea being that they get sick of checking the phone and always saying yes. once it gets to that point you just tell the phone to do it and you can check if you feel like it.
Exactly. It is this behavioral tendency that will inevtiably be exploited by those with access to this system (or to the comapny in charge of it). Once people aren't looking, unwanted charges will start to appear, along with a tendency toward purchases from certain companies who've paid for tie-ins, etc.. Why, this whole thing could make marketing obsolete! No need for ads; the phones will just tell people what to buy.
But, in all seriousness, this product will be DOA. No one will buy it.
after a few days or weeks of using it... they [sic] be begging to get Windows on their computer... Ok, in fairness, they wouldn't necessarily be begging for Windows, per se, but they'd be begging to be able to have a working solution."
If they end up running XP, they'll still be begging for a "working solution," depending on what your definition of "working" is.
You still haven't answered the problem!....
-snip- ....All of those are true, but are worthelss statements for fixing tenure. If you want to keep it, justify your answer. Employing misdirection....
Here's the part you missed (from parent comment): Which system encourages far-sighted research plans? Which system encourages making good long-term decisions rather optimizing short-term gain? Which system allows development of highly devoted faculty?
I was gearing up to buy a Mac -- a 17" iMac or a 12" PowerBook, but with new chips on the horizon I think I'll hold off for a few months.
Don't. If Apple does use the 970, they certainly won't start in the low-middle-end (your picks). High-end rigs will get them first, as is always the case with a "big new thing." You'd be waiting 1.5+ years for it to be in the iMac. (Note that they still sell G3 laptops.)
Better yet just delete the Flash and Shockwave plug-ins. I almost never see an animation in my browser. It always shocks me when I use someone else's box, and I wonder how they endure the constant Flash(TM) Attacks(TM).
Any company with a "Flash-only" web site doesn't deserve my business.
I am a scientist working with nanotechnology, so listen to what I have to say.
Although this article does bring up some important points, it is basically FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doom, for the newbs). The fact that it is self-published is a big tip-off. Here are some important points, some repeated from others' replies, but repeated here because they are important.
(1) Pretty much everyone in materials science is working the word "nano" into their work. Nanotechnology and nanoscience are buzzwords that are currently very hot. Hot areas attract lots of researchers. More than that, though, great numbers of people apply the latest hot label to their work if they can, because it helps them get funding, which helps them do their work. For example, a seminally hot buzzword is "cancer." If you can somehow claim that your work will lead to curing cancer, then it is more likely to get funded. This may sound dumb, but it's reality.
(2) Just about all materials science research is nano-research. So, in many cases, adding the "nano" tag to your work is valid.
(3) Most nanotechnology and nanoscience work does NOT deal with powders. You can call your stuff nano if it has features less than 0.1 microns. Nanoscience deals with layers that are nano, bulk materials which have grain structures on the nano scale, the production of nano-sized features on surfaces, and so on. Some things that you could call nanoscience and nanotechnology are common. In fact, you are using a nanomachine to read this post. (There are structures in computer chips that are only a nanometer or two thick, for example the gate oxide in those billions of transistors.)
(4) Most nano-sized things are not going to jump out and kill you. That is because they are a part of a larger thing, stuck together, if you like. To be of any concern for entry into the body, these things have to be airborne. When part of something, they are not.
(5) Many nanopowders are probably unhealthy. Nano-sized things described in (4) can be freed by smashing something up. Of course, any time you smash something up, you are creating nanoparticles, too. And every time you burn something, you are creating nanoparticles. Lots. All of these things can get into your lungs. Many of them stay there to cause cancer or scarring. That's what's so dangerous about diesel engines and coal power plants. So really, breathing in nanoparticles is nothing new.
(6) One thing that makes some inhaled particles which your lungs do not eject (less than 1 micron) dangerous, is that they can cause scarring, which over time results in loss of working lung tissue. Example materials are: asbestos, silica particles, diatomaceous earth, fiberglass, and probably nanotubes. Many other materials don't cause this kind of damage. Why? Well, tiny particles are usually very sharp. If your body can't dissolve them, then they stay sharp. And if your body also cannot eject them, then they keep cutting for the rest of your life. Only people who inhale a lot of these bad things on a regular basis get enough of them in their lungs to cause disease.
Anyway, there are many materials that we know do not dissolve in the body, but most stuff does, thanks to water.) Any nanopowder of a material that doesn't break down in the body will cause an "-osis" disease if enough of it is inhaled. But, unless you work in a factory making hundreds of pounds of nanopowders for sale, then it is unlikely that you have anything to worry about. If your specific worries are the titanium oxide and zinc oxide in sunscreens, then you should also stop taking vitamins, because they are in there, too. But, I'm pretty sure that they dissolve in your body, probably through hydroxylation.
(7) Drexler is an idiot. His nanoassemblers and the gray goo are pure fantasy. I won't bother to go into it, but unless such machines can be backed up by an army of Maxwell Demon
The article talks about using ZiO2 to make the transistors
Not to pick nits, but there is no such thing as ZiO2. Zinc oxide is ZnO2. And as far as any UV merry-hell-playing goes, there are clear substances which absorb UV, commonly referred to as glass, behind which these electronics would undoubtedly lie.
Also, they don't give any of the parametrics of the devices - the maximum switching frequency,...
That's because they just invented and have only first made it. They've shown that it is possible, as a materials technology. That is very different than the specifications of specific devices, to which you allude.
"I'm starting out in graduate school at the UW in Materials Science and Engineering and doing research on spin electronics....
You'll find that most of the oxide electronics crowd (spintronics, ferroelectrics, etc.; the folks you'll be running with) uses Kaleidagraph. It's NOT the best port, I agree, but you DO have control over EVERYTHING once you get a feel for the software. You can also set up templates for commonly-used plots (like the theta-2 theta plots I'll bet you'll be doing a lot of). And, since it's what everybody else uses, you'll be able to exchange plots easily with collaborators for those last-minute additions to conference talks!
Re:What The World... err, Safari Needs Now is...
on
Tabs for Safari
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What The World... err, Safari Needs Now is...
The ability to TURN OFF FLASH/SHOCKWAVE! Is anyone else so distracted by animations when they're trying to read text that they have diabled flash/shockwave? Animations are cool, but only when that's what I want to watch, which is less often than I want to read text without some Monkey jumping around waiting to be Punched, or whatever. (GIF animations are off, too.) In my browser, nothing moves, and all is well. Opera, Baby, you are still on top.
Why does a jawbone need to be organic? Couldn't an artificial one be made of titanium or something?
It can. My dentist was installing metal (I think titanium) jaw part replacements into guys wounded in Vietnam. The problem is that the thermal and mechaincal properties of bone and titanium (or any metal) are very different. This leads to a lot of pain with slight temperature changes, mechanical shock like chewing, and so on. It's best to replace body parts using materials that are as similar as possible to the original. You can't get much closer that bone-for-bone.
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T local service used to bombard me with three and four phone calls per day.
I used to have the same problem, and also put a lot of effort into trying to make them stop. I switched phone companies, and intentionally went without cable TV and fast internet (both AT&T-only in my old building) for a year as a direct result.
Their telephone harassment was particularly egregious. I've been AT&T-free for three years, and plan to continue to be.
His job was previously filled by Mr. "communist Russia," who sadly died after some 40-odd years of service. He will be missed.
And just who is this "they" that you speak of? Please clarify.
Whoa! This may be the king of around-the-corner technologies (or legends). Don't fountain of youth legends go waaay back?
Also, the title is misleading. "Nano Power for Nano Devices Patented" sounds like the idea of having any power for nano devices has been patented. It's not that. The researchers have simply come up with a method to produce a structure that could be used for the purpose. There are undoubtedly numerous other ways of achieving this same goal. They're just one of the first reporting one to the mainstream press.
Just because diamond has higher thermal conductivity doesn't mean that it can magically solve all of our problems...without knowing what kind of carrier mobilities can be acheived...
You're right that we know little about diamond. But, if inexpensive diamond substrates become available for research (e.g., as suggested by the article), then we can learn the answers to those questions. It's something many researchers want to study, but can't for lack of material.
says JJ, "There are a bunch of problems that using a diamond substrate for semiconductors would pose. I mean for one thing, not being a metal but instead a crystal, the resistance to currents is magnitudes greater than for silicon. I agree the thermal properties are grea, but can the other issues be resolved? Long way off folks. "
No, no, no.
Silicon wafers are (single) crystal.
the resistivity of diamond is magnitudes lower than silicon
JJ is a long way off, folks.
but the CONFIDENTIAL documents are all marked "CONFIDENTIAL until xxx 2002" or "CONFIDENTIAL until xxx 2001." Not such a gaping security hole, it seems.
Yes, the potential implications of RFID are creepy, but their planning for a marketing campaign sounds pretty much par for the course.
...if we save ourselves before they get the chance.
Discalimer: IAASSP (I AM a solid state physicist)
:-P
Please ignore the parent of this post (the one with F=ma, etc.). If you've got some mod points, please mod it down, or at least label it as "Funny" because just about everything in it is dead WRONG.
Going over all the made-up physics would just waste space. Please mod it down! (and me up)
The "I get to pick and choose what comments I respond to, and I get the last word at the end, so nyeah!" section at the bottom reveals this article for what it is â" flamebait.
alot of people are replying that they wouldn't want the phone making the decisions for them, spending their money. Over time, this is exactly what is going to happen. The article says people will have to confirm the choices until the give teh power to the phone. The idea being that they get sick of checking the phone and always saying yes. once it gets to that point you just tell the phone to do it and you can check if you feel like it.
Exactly. It is this behavioral tendency that will inevtiably be exploited by those with access to this system (or to the comapny in charge of it). Once people aren't looking, unwanted charges will start to appear, along with a tendency toward purchases from certain companies who've paid for tie-ins, etc.. Why, this whole thing could make marketing obsolete! No need for ads; the phones will just tell people what to buy.
But, in all seriousness, this product will be DOA. No one will buy it.
after a few days or weeks of using it... they [sic] be begging to get Windows on their computer... Ok, in fairness, they wouldn't necessarily be begging for Windows, per se, but they'd be begging to be able to have a working solution."
If they end up running XP, they'll still be begging for a "working solution," depending on what your definition of "working" is.
You still haven't answered the problem!....
....All of those are true, but are worthelss statements for fixing tenure. If you want to keep it, justify your answer. Employing misdirection....
-snip-
Here's the part you missed (from parent comment): Which system encourages far-sighted research plans? Which system encourages making good long-term decisions rather optimizing short-term gain? Which system allows development of highly devoted faculty?
The answer to all three questions is "tenure."
On the other hand, Opera for Mac is a piece of shit.... The UI is neither intuitive or graphically pleasing.
Looks fine to me in its default. You can also use custom skins and such, I hear.
There are no tabs.
Wrong again. I'm typing this in a tabbed window in Opera 6 for OS X right now.
It renders well most of the time, but fails miserably on some tables in my experience.
It renders most pages just fine. All browsers have trouble with some pages some of the time.
Please don't make stuff up.
I was gearing up to buy a Mac -- a 17" iMac or a 12" PowerBook, but with new chips on the horizon I think I'll hold off for a few months.
Don't. If Apple does use the 970, they certainly won't start in the low-middle-end (your picks). High-end rigs will get them first, as is always the case with a "big new thing." You'd be waiting 1.5+ years for it to be in the iMac. (Note that they still sell G3 laptops.)
Better yet just delete the Flash and Shockwave plug-ins. I almost never see an animation in my browser. It always shocks me when I use someone else's box, and I wonder how they endure the constant Flash(TM) Attacks(TM).
Any company with a "Flash-only" web site doesn't deserve my business.
I am a scientist working with nanotechnology, so listen to what I have to say.
Although this article does bring up some important points, it is basically FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doom, for the newbs). The fact that it is self-published is a big tip-off. Here are some important points, some repeated from others' replies, but repeated here because they are important.
(1) Pretty much everyone in materials science is working the word "nano" into their work. Nanotechnology and nanoscience are buzzwords that are currently very hot. Hot areas attract lots of researchers. More than that, though, great numbers of people apply the latest hot label to their work if they can, because it helps them get funding, which helps them do their work. For example, a seminally hot buzzword is "cancer." If you can somehow claim that your work will lead to curing cancer, then it is more likely to get funded. This may sound dumb, but it's reality.
(2) Just about all materials science research is nano-research. So, in many cases, adding the "nano" tag to your work is valid.
(3) Most nanotechnology and nanoscience work does NOT deal with powders. You can call your stuff nano if it has features less than 0.1 microns. Nanoscience deals with layers that are nano, bulk materials which have grain structures on the nano scale, the production of nano-sized features on surfaces, and so on. Some things that you could call nanoscience and nanotechnology are common. In fact, you are using a nanomachine to read this post. (There are structures in computer chips that are only a nanometer or two thick, for example the gate oxide in those billions of transistors.)
(4) Most nano-sized things are not going to jump out and kill you. That is because they are a part of a larger thing, stuck together, if you like. To be of any concern for entry into the body, these things have to be airborne. When part of something, they are not.
(5) Many nanopowders are probably unhealthy. Nano-sized things described in (4) can be freed by smashing something up. Of course, any time you smash something up, you are creating nanoparticles, too. And every time you burn something, you are creating nanoparticles. Lots. All of these things can get into your lungs. Many of them stay there to cause cancer or scarring. That's what's so dangerous about diesel engines and coal power plants. So really, breathing in nanoparticles is nothing new.
(6) One thing that makes some inhaled particles which your lungs do not eject (less than 1 micron) dangerous, is that they can cause scarring, which over time results in loss of working lung tissue. Example materials are: asbestos, silica particles, diatomaceous earth, fiberglass, and probably nanotubes. Many other materials don't cause this kind of damage. Why? Well, tiny particles are usually very sharp. If your body can't dissolve them, then they stay sharp. And if your body also cannot eject them, then they keep cutting for the rest of your life. Only people who inhale a lot of these bad things on a regular basis get enough of them in their lungs to cause disease.
Anyway, there are many materials that we know do not dissolve in the body, but most stuff does, thanks to water.) Any nanopowder of a material that doesn't break down in the body will cause an "-osis" disease if enough of it is inhaled. But, unless you work in a factory making hundreds of pounds of nanopowders for sale, then it is unlikely that you have anything to worry about. If your specific worries are the titanium oxide and zinc oxide in sunscreens, then you should also stop taking vitamins, because they are in there, too. But, I'm pretty sure that they dissolve in your body, probably through hydroxylation.
(7) Drexler is an idiot. His nanoassemblers and the gray goo are pure fantasy. I won't bother to go into it, but unless such machines can be backed up by an army of Maxwell Demon
The article talks about using ZiO2 to make the transistors
Not to pick nits, but there is no such thing as ZiO2. Zinc oxide is ZnO2. And as far as any UV merry-hell-playing goes, there are clear substances which absorb UV, commonly referred to as glass, behind which these electronics would undoubtedly lie.
Also, they don't give any of the parametrics of the devices - the maximum switching frequency,...
That's because they just invented and have only first made it. They've shown that it is possible, as a materials technology. That is very different than the specifications of specific devices, to which you allude.
How about Eugenia? (or Eugene, depending)
Number Two?
"I'm starting out in graduate school at the UW in Materials Science and Engineering and doing research on spin electronics....
You'll find that most of the oxide electronics crowd (spintronics, ferroelectrics, etc.; the folks you'll be running with) uses Kaleidagraph. It's NOT the best port, I agree, but you DO have control over EVERYTHING once you get a feel for the software. You can also set up templates for commonly-used plots (like the theta-2 theta plots I'll bet you'll be doing a lot of). And, since it's what everybody else uses, you'll be able to exchange plots easily with collaborators for those last-minute additions to conference talks!
What The World... err, Safari Needs Now is...
The ability to TURN OFF FLASH/SHOCKWAVE! Is anyone else so distracted by animations when they're trying to read text that they have diabled flash/shockwave? Animations are cool, but only when that's what I want to watch, which is less often than I want to read text without some Monkey jumping around waiting to be Punched, or whatever. (GIF animations are off, too.) In my browser, nothing moves, and all is well. Opera, Baby, you are still on top.
Am I the only one?
Why does a jawbone need to be organic? Couldn't an artificial one be made of titanium or something?
It can. My dentist was installing metal (I think titanium) jaw part replacements into guys wounded in Vietnam. The problem is that the thermal and mechaincal properties of bone and titanium (or any metal) are very different. This leads to a lot of pain with slight temperature changes, mechanical shock like chewing, and so on. It's best to replace body parts using materials that are as similar as possible to the original. You can't get much closer that bone-for-bone.