Different (more paranoid) logic, same conclusion: After they crush that threat to our national security, "open source" what will they go after next? When I publish research to a scientific journal, I enter a situation very similar to the GNU license. That is, I have made this research public and must provide the supporting data (source code if you will) upon request. If open computer code is such a danger, what of scientific research that can be used to create something horrible? Well, I'm sure the news will be next on the list... Those dangerous articles just provide intelligence informatoin to terrorists. Of course, how does one access all this information? To be totally safe, you will indeed have to shut off the internet. We can't have all this "open" information flying around the nation for any malevolent freedom-hater to tap into! We have to protect America's "innovation and security" at all costs afterall. Unless we rebuild the internet on Microsoft technology, then it's OK because no one will be able to afford to use the internet.
I am a graduate student in organic chemistry at the UCLA Exotic Materials Institute which basically means I read about this tuff all day long (and I can't spell). In fact, a researcher from IBM just gave a talk here two weeks ago, but on a different topic. I am at work, so I couldn't read all the posts, but I felt I needed to throw in my two cents anyway...
Getting molecules to emit light is easy. You can do it with light (e.g. fluorescence) or eletric fields (e.g. electroluminescence) or even chemical reactions (think glow sticks). OLEDs do in fact use the same method to generate light, but are comprised of many molecules and different molecules, like phosphore doped conducting polymers. An example is OLEDs based on C60, which was the hot "nanotech" molecule of yesteryear, but is a carbon allotrope like nanotubes. Anyway, PLED's are polymer based LEDs in which a single molecular component (a polymer) conducts the current and emits the light. Light emitting nanotubes are the latest application of the "nantotech" flavor of the month. Isolating single SWCNTs (single walled carbon nanotubes) between tiny electrodes has lead to a whole field of research, for example SWCNT chemosensors. Every single paper beings with "the first time a single molecule has been used for ______" because that's how you sell it.
The neat thing about what IBM has done is to use a carbon allotrope (in chemistry land we aren't allowed to say carbon molecule) in a new functional device. So instead of PLEDs and OLEDs which have the difficult synthesize/purify steps on top of the difficult device fabrication step, you can get nanotubes to grow directly on (or across) your device (substrate). Emission wavelengths can be controlled readily by alterting the morphology and size of the tubes.
Ok, so summarize; SWCNTs are easy to make relative to other organic molecules (that have similar properties). Any device made from a SWCNT is "the first time _____ has been done with a single molecule". Any device fabricated from a carbon allotrope has applications in "replacing modern silicon based ____ " because it is comprised of only carbon atoms... Granted this is all my opinion, so don't take it as the gospel truth unless you're well informed enough to know about the research I'm talking about first hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Different (more paranoid) logic, same conclusion: After they crush that threat to our national security, "open source" what will they go after next? When I publish research to a scientific journal, I enter a situation very similar to the GNU license. That is, I have made this research public and must provide the supporting data (source code if you will) upon request. If open computer code is such a danger, what of scientific research that can be used to create something horrible? Well, I'm sure the news will be next on the list... Those dangerous articles just provide intelligence informatoin to terrorists. Of course, how does one access all this information? To be totally safe, you will indeed have to shut off the internet. We can't have all this "open" information flying around the nation for any malevolent freedom-hater to tap into! We have to protect America's "innovation and security" at all costs afterall. Unless we rebuild the internet on Microsoft technology, then it's OK because no one will be able to afford to use the internet.
I am a graduate student in organic chemistry at the UCLA Exotic Materials Institute which basically means I read about this tuff all day long (and I can't spell). In fact, a researcher from IBM just gave a talk here two weeks ago, but on a different topic. I am at work, so I couldn't read all the posts, but I felt I needed to throw in my two cents anyway... Getting molecules to emit light is easy. You can do it with light (e.g. fluorescence) or eletric fields (e.g. electroluminescence) or even chemical reactions (think glow sticks). OLEDs do in fact use the same method to generate light, but are comprised of many molecules and different molecules, like phosphore doped conducting polymers. An example is OLEDs based on C60, which was the hot "nanotech" molecule of yesteryear, but is a carbon allotrope like nanotubes. Anyway, PLED's are polymer based LEDs in which a single molecular component (a polymer) conducts the current and emits the light. Light emitting nanotubes are the latest application of the "nantotech" flavor of the month. Isolating single SWCNTs (single walled carbon nanotubes) between tiny electrodes has lead to a whole field of research, for example SWCNT chemosensors. Every single paper beings with "the first time a single molecule has been used for ______" because that's how you sell it. The neat thing about what IBM has done is to use a carbon allotrope (in chemistry land we aren't allowed to say carbon molecule) in a new functional device. So instead of PLEDs and OLEDs which have the difficult synthesize/purify steps on top of the difficult device fabrication step, you can get nanotubes to grow directly on (or across) your device (substrate). Emission wavelengths can be controlled readily by alterting the morphology and size of the tubes. Ok, so summarize; SWCNTs are easy to make relative to other organic molecules (that have similar properties). Any device made from a SWCNT is "the first time _____ has been done with a single molecule". Any device fabricated from a carbon allotrope has applications in "replacing modern silicon based ____ " because it is comprised of only carbon atoms... Granted this is all my opinion, so don't take it as the gospel truth unless you're well informed enough to know about the research I'm talking about first hand.