I second this. There's a perfectly good mechanism to add your own opinions to the discussion. Maybe it's hard to be objective and only present the facts, but that's no excuse not to try. A little respect for the cognitive abilities of the rest of us would be nice.
Sorting semiconducting nanotubes by size? That's not a big deal, certainly not worth talking about here. Just grow the diameter and length you want.
Separating semiconducting and metallic nanotubes in bulk? (microfluidics is bulk for nanotubes) That's a huge deal! We can't grow just metallic or just semiconducting nanotubes. Previously, we could look at nanotubes one at a time using various methods to *find* a metallic or semiconducting nanotube, but sorting is another thing. If this really works, it will be great for nanotube electronics.
You may have discovered that neutrinos have mass only recently, but I was taught that in my undergraduate particle physics class long ago. It seemed to me to be more of a confirmation of theorists ideas following on the work on solar neutrinos. I would argue that the solar neutrino measurement was the first definitive non-standard model measurement. Even that the standard model is not right comes as no surprise to anyone who has been going to physics talks for the last few years. I don't know that I've met a cosmologist who hasn't gleefully pointed out that his work showed the standard model has problems. Which brings us right back to string theory, of which I gathered the whole idea was to replace the standard model. In all, I would say that Minos was a great experiment, but was not nearly a surprise.
I think this shows things are working the way they should. At least the theorists in your field are trying to find an answer to the experiments showing the existing theories are incorrect. A big surprise would show that someone's not doing their job.
Behind every good scientific paper are hours of hallway conversations, convention arguments and group discussions. The "real science" of making connections is done there, not while simply reading through papers. It's the challenge of real conversation and the need to defend or attack research that leads to new science. Papers are a kind of guidepost that tells the world where a particular group is in their field at a given time. Computers are very much a part of research today, but even with EXPO, they will be no more than a tool for a human scientist to do "real science".
I'm always posting opinions *similar* to that around here, and I tell people in the nanotube community the same thing (reference 1 in the Nature blurb is one of my papers... that's a reference, I'm not the "never" guy). The point is not that a space elevator can't be built, but that people need to focus on more than just robotics. There are serious problems with trying to use carbon nanotubes as fishing line, let alone a space elevator. I'm really glad that someone realizes that defects may be an issue.
There are a ton of really excellent people who have worked on nanotube transistors. Many of them came through IBM, and it's no coincidence that IBM is way ahead of anyone else in developing nanotube electronics. They drove the academic research in that direction by training a bunch of people and getting them the experiance necessary to get a faculty position. I want to see a space elevator, and so I'm glad to see LiftPort finally opening a CNT research lab. If groups like Liftport assume academic researchers are going to do this research for them, they're going to be disappointed. Sure, it might happen eventually, but it may take a few decades more to get started. We need an honest assessment of what the problems are so that people will start talking about it and looking for solutions.
There are other places which are trying to make a name for themselves in biology, nanotechnology and I'm sure plenty of other fields.
The best example I can think of is San Diego and bio research. You've got more than enough rich people, plenty of smart people and whole lot of institutes, businesses and academic centers. The locals are into it and to top it off, you've also got an insane housing market, but lots of room to build. That's not to say San Diego is the Silicon Valley of biology, but it's not hard to imagine it becoming such a place in 10 or 20 years.
At this point, you can't reproduce Silicon Valley, what's done is done. It's not absurd to imagine what went on there going on elsewhere though.
There are already plenty of ways to "see" the motions of atoms which do not require a very expensive national X-ray source. This technique is not comparable to AFM and STM, which are now cheap enough to use in teaching labs.
In terms of science investment, fusion has recieved quite a lot of funding. People are simply not willing to pay very much for science which may not work out in the end. Why do we have to have cancer research fundraisers? Can't someone just give them what they need to cure it?
There are a lot of technical reasons to look for power sources other than fusion. One reason is, it's radioactive. There's far less radioactivity than in fission, but you still end up with a lot of radioactive waste, and you still have people walking around with radiation badges. Another reason is that it just doesn't work with our current technology. ITER will NOT generate power. It's not even close. Fusion plasmas today already put out more energy then we put in, but we can't turn that energy into electricity yet. In fact, many fusion teams (like the one I used to work on) can't even test their machines at peak capacity because the energy coming out would simply irradiate the area around them, pissing everyone off without generating any power.
The main problem (as I see it) with fusion has nothing to do with plasma, but has to do with materials. We need better superconductors, better heat conductors and some new miracle material to make the inner wall of the chamber out of.
That 28 seconds means these guys in Japan have new materials that can survive being sandwhiched between very strong magnetic fields, particle beams (for fueling) and extremes of temperature from around liquid nitrogen to... well, fusion for for 28 seconds.
I've seen a (semi) serious suggestion that the best way to deal with global warming is to put a thin film of dust in between the earth and the sun. This wasn't from some internet hack either, but a rather senior physicist.
Which is why Slashdot for once had the right headline:
Neutrino Mass Confirmed
I know plenty of people who work on Super-K and I'm sure they're as glad as anyone their work has been found accurate. The fact that it took almost a decade to confirm this shows how amazing that first measurement is.
This guy doesn't seem to get (probably on purpose) what the interviewer was getting at. Sony's business strategy in electronics has always been to cut out as many 3rd parties as possible (much like Apple). It is obvious this is happening right now in games, and that some day not far off Sony will not be selling anything meaningful through Gamestop, having created their own distrobution channels online and with branded stores.
That, and what kind of video game executive plays golf in the afternoons?
You have to dress for your audience. I've met with business people and politicians to talk about physics and funding and if I'm not wearing a suit, I'm wearing something not far from it.
Meeting with other academics, or even people like the Regents of the UC system requires good, practical lab attire (sadly, not sandals).
The difference being that one group wants to see that I actually put science first, and will be returning to the lab any minute to make great discoveries. The other group wants "respect" or something like that above all else.
As an experimental physicist, this stuff looks pretty alien to me. I would say that if there is a basic experiment that would show these principals to be true, it either hasn't been done, or failed miserably and we all moved on. My guess would be the latter, given the massive professonal rewards in physics for standing orthodox theory on its head (and getting a high magnetic field is not that hard these days).
The short answer is yes, this will be like asbestos.
There are unfortunately many people in the nanotechnology industry who promote products without regard to safety. It pisses me off, because those of us actually trying to help people will be stuck with the stigma of working in an irresponsible industry.
This is what happens when we continue to trust press releases over actual science.
This may be a great new technique, but there are so many problems with that little blurb, it's amazing. I'm sitting at an AFM right now doing a lot of what they say I shouldn't be able to. Incorporating the Z-actuator on the tip is nothing new, and people are already selling high speed AFMs, and have been for quite some time now.
The cool part is that current systems rely on a one dimensional oscillator to sense forces, while this relies on a two dimensional oscillator, and that seems to be better. The bad part is that it seems to require touching the surface (which is a big problem if you want to incorporate electric forces into your measurement).
Before you continue to smash people over the head with blunt and incorrect legal arguments, you should actually read the law which was referenced. You may find that it is not any clause defining Fair Use as you have quoted in other places, but rather a clause on catching. The link is right there on the front page.
As you have said: "Unfortunately, while you may WISH this to be the case, this is not what the law says. Your wishful thinking doesn't make your statement true. You've basically invented your theory out of whole cloth, or, put another way, pulled it out of your ass."
In microscopes I have used (of the electron and scanning probe variety), often automatic image processing is used when you save an image. We've had to be very careful to make sure that we have disabled anything we can, and in some cases, have had to scrap software and write our own to make sure we weren't losing data.
Really, the problem is that there isn't room in a scientific paper to put dozens of images proving your point. When you're given 3 pages, you select the best image or two that you have. Ultimately, an editor or reviewer can ask for supplemental information if there is any doubt in the result. Perhaps the problem is that reviewers aren't asking to see (or people are not providing) the supplimental data which a good scientist uses to determine truth.
Slashdot Mirror
I second this. There's a perfectly good mechanism to add your own opinions to the discussion. Maybe it's hard to be objective and only present the facts, but that's no excuse not to try. A little respect for the cognitive abilities of the rest of us would be nice.
I wonder why it is Sears takes Mastercard and Visa today, yet no one seems to take a Sears card?
Sorting semiconducting nanotubes by size? That's not a big deal, certainly not worth talking about here. Just grow the diameter and length you want.
Separating semiconducting and metallic nanotubes in bulk? (microfluidics is bulk for nanotubes) That's a huge deal! We can't grow just metallic or just semiconducting nanotubes. Previously, we could look at nanotubes one at a time using various methods to *find* a metallic or semiconducting nanotube, but sorting is another thing. If this really works, it will be great for nanotube electronics.
You may have discovered that neutrinos have mass only recently, but I was taught that in my undergraduate particle physics class long ago. It seemed to me to be more of a confirmation of theorists ideas following on the work on solar neutrinos. I would argue that the solar neutrino measurement was the first definitive non-standard model measurement. Even that the standard model is not right comes as no surprise to anyone who has been going to physics talks for the last few years. I don't know that I've met a cosmologist who hasn't gleefully pointed out that his work showed the standard model has problems. Which brings us right back to string theory, of which I gathered the whole idea was to replace the standard model. In all, I would say that Minos was a great experiment, but was not nearly a surprise.
I think this shows things are working the way they should. At least the theorists in your field are trying to find an answer to the experiments showing the existing theories are incorrect. A big surprise would show that someone's not doing their job.
No.
Actually, this does not set precedent. There's no court ruling for other courts to reference, a private settlement is not a valid law.
This actually keeps other companies from having to allow this.
Behind every good scientific paper are hours of hallway conversations, convention arguments and group discussions. The "real science" of making connections is done there, not while simply reading through papers. It's the challenge of real conversation and the need to defend or attack research that leads to new science. Papers are a kind of guidepost that tells the world where a particular group is in their field at a given time. Computers are very much a part of research today, but even with EXPO, they will be no more than a tool for a human scientist to do "real science".
Hmmm... Price of a decent new gaming computer = Price of 360 + Price of PS3 (approximately)
You make a good argument.
I'm always posting opinions *similar* to that around here, and I tell people in the nanotube community the same thing (reference 1 in the Nature blurb is one of my papers... that's a reference, I'm not the "never" guy). The point is not that a space elevator can't be built, but that people need to focus on more than just robotics. There are serious problems with trying to use carbon nanotubes as fishing line, let alone a space elevator. I'm really glad that someone realizes that defects may be an issue.
There are a ton of really excellent people who have worked on nanotube transistors. Many of them came through IBM, and it's no coincidence that IBM is way ahead of anyone else in developing nanotube electronics. They drove the academic research in that direction by training a bunch of people and getting them the experiance necessary to get a faculty position. I want to see a space elevator, and so I'm glad to see LiftPort finally opening a CNT research lab. If groups like Liftport assume academic researchers are going to do this research for them, they're going to be disappointed. Sure, it might happen eventually, but it may take a few decades more to get started. We need an honest assessment of what the problems are so that people will start talking about it and looking for solutions.
There are other places which are trying to make a name for themselves in biology, nanotechnology and I'm sure plenty of other fields.
The best example I can think of is San Diego and bio research. You've got more than enough rich people, plenty of smart people and whole lot of institutes, businesses and academic centers. The locals are into it and to top it off, you've also got an insane housing market, but lots of room to build. That's not to say San Diego is the Silicon Valley of biology, but it's not hard to imagine it becoming such a place in 10 or 20 years.
At this point, you can't reproduce Silicon Valley, what's done is done. It's not absurd to imagine what went on there going on elsewhere though.
There are already plenty of ways to "see" the motions of atoms which do not require a very expensive national X-ray source. This technique is not comparable to AFM and STM, which are now cheap enough to use in teaching labs.
In terms of science investment, fusion has recieved quite a lot of funding. People are simply not willing to pay very much for science which may not work out in the end. Why do we have to have cancer research fundraisers? Can't someone just give them what they need to cure it?
There are a lot of technical reasons to look for power sources other than fusion. One reason is, it's radioactive. There's far less radioactivity than in fission, but you still end up with a lot of radioactive waste, and you still have people walking around with radiation badges. Another reason is that it just doesn't work with our current technology. ITER will NOT generate power. It's not even close. Fusion plasmas today already put out more energy then we put in, but we can't turn that energy into electricity yet. In fact, many fusion teams (like the one I used to work on) can't even test their machines at peak capacity because the energy coming out would simply irradiate the area around them, pissing everyone off without generating any power.
The main problem (as I see it) with fusion has nothing to do with plasma, but has to do with materials. We need better superconductors, better heat conductors and some new miracle material to make the inner wall of the chamber out of.
That 28 seconds means these guys in Japan have new materials that can survive being sandwhiched between very strong magnetic fields, particle beams (for fueling) and extremes of temperature from around liquid nitrogen to... well, fusion for for 28 seconds.
Wow, way to sum it up.
Of course, calling it a "mirror" doesn't really thrill the grant agencies.
I've seen a (semi) serious suggestion that the best way to deal with global warming is to put a thin film of dust in between the earth and the sun. This wasn't from some internet hack either, but a rather senior physicist.
They really should change that or the rest of us may start assuming they're not as bright as we were led to believe.
Which is why Slashdot for once had the right headline:
Neutrino Mass Confirmed
I know plenty of people who work on Super-K and I'm sure they're as glad as anyone their work has been found accurate. The fact that it took almost a decade to confirm this shows how amazing that first measurement is.
This guy doesn't seem to get (probably on purpose) what the interviewer was getting at. Sony's business strategy in electronics has always been to cut out as many 3rd parties as possible (much like Apple). It is obvious this is happening right now in games, and that some day not far off Sony will not be selling anything meaningful through Gamestop, having created their own distrobution channels online and with branded stores.
That, and what kind of video game executive plays golf in the afternoons?
You have to dress for your audience. I've met with business people and politicians to talk about physics and funding and if I'm not wearing a suit, I'm wearing something not far from it.
Meeting with other academics, or even people like the Regents of the UC system requires good, practical lab attire (sadly, not sandals).
The difference being that one group wants to see that I actually put science first, and will be returning to the lab any minute to make great discoveries. The other group wants "respect" or something like that above all else.
Excellent point!
As an experimental physicist, this stuff looks pretty alien to me. I would say that if there is a basic experiment that would show these principals to be true, it either hasn't been done, or failed miserably and we all moved on. My guess would be the latter, given the massive professonal rewards in physics for standing orthodox theory on its head (and getting a high magnetic field is not that hard these days).
For a second there, I thought you were talking about science. You know, testable theories... never mind.
The short answer is yes, this will be like asbestos.
There are unfortunately many people in the nanotechnology industry who promote products without regard to safety. It pisses me off, because those of us actually trying to help people will be stuck with the stigma of working in an irresponsible industry.
This is what happens when we continue to trust press releases over actual science.
This may be a great new technique, but there are so many problems with that little blurb, it's amazing. I'm sitting at an AFM right now doing a lot of what they say I shouldn't be able to. Incorporating the Z-actuator on the tip is nothing new, and people are already selling high speed AFMs, and have been for quite some time now.
The cool part is that current systems rely on a one dimensional oscillator to sense forces, while this relies on a two dimensional oscillator, and that seems to be better. The bad part is that it seems to require touching the surface (which is a big problem if you want to incorporate electric forces into your measurement).
Nope, not going to defend him. We just disagree on which law should be applied.
Before you continue to smash people over the head with blunt and incorrect legal arguments, you should actually read the law which was referenced. You may find that it is not any clause defining Fair Use as you have quoted in other places, but rather a clause on catching. The link is right there on the front page.
As you have said:
"Unfortunately, while you may WISH this to be the case, this is not what the law says. Your wishful thinking doesn't make your statement true. You've basically invented your theory out of whole cloth, or, put another way, pulled it out of your ass."
In microscopes I have used (of the electron and scanning probe variety), often automatic image processing is used when you save an image. We've had to be very careful to make sure that we have disabled anything we can, and in some cases, have had to scrap software and write our own to make sure we weren't losing data.
Really, the problem is that there isn't room in a scientific paper to put dozens of images proving your point. When you're given 3 pages, you select the best image or two that you have. Ultimately, an editor or reviewer can ask for supplemental information if there is any doubt in the result. Perhaps the problem is that reviewers aren't asking to see (or people are not providing) the supplimental data which a good scientist uses to determine truth.