Everspin previously used the crossed-lines writing technique (shown here http://thefutureofthings.com/upload/image/articles/2006/mram/mram-write.jpg), but has now switched to spin-transfer torque based devices. Several other companies are also working on this, so things to improve rapidly. PR release at (http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/14/everspin-throws-first-st-mram-chips-down/)

Trying to subvert a decision by the courts by going against the the spirit of it, but while technically following it somewhat doesn't work. Apple knew what it had to do, but it didn't do it. Instead it tried to weasel its way out and now it has been reprimanded. Do you seriously expect the judges to explicitly list every step that Apple needs to take in a large amount of detail?

Eh, even if he had made up realistic-looking data, there were a lot of other red flags: not saving raw data or samples, no one else making measurements, all other groups unable to reproduce results, etc. In retrospect, it sounds like it only went on that long because he was at a private lab, but I see what you mean.

For any sort of data storage the energy barrier between the two states needs to be large enough that the system doesn't thermodynamically fluctuate between them very often. In practice, this means that the barrier needs to be several times larger than kb*T where kb is the boltzman constant. For computation there's not any hard and fast rule about the energy required, but there's lots of practical ones...

I'd say do it, but just not in the USA.

You did say that you believe that education is a business and that the more competition a business receives, the better it is for the customer. I just suggested an alternate option that would be more competitive for low-income families. I'm not implying that you're pro-child labor -- I'm giving a counterexample to show that your blanket statement is silly, and that (assuming education is a business) competition to public education is not always better for the customer.

What I'm saying is that this will do almost nothing to help low and middle-class families.

I checked the numbers for the country where I grew up: http://www.charlottelatin.org/admissions/tuition.asp http://www.charlottecountryday.org/admissions/tuition-financial-aid/index.aspx http://www.providenceday.org/tuition . The medium household income is 50 k$, putting private education entirely out of reach for most families.

Sure, that makes sense for businesses, but since when is primary education a business? A lot of people would agree that a primary education is a human right: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a26 Unfortunately for many families a more economically competitive option would be to send kids to work at age 14 rather than to school. Allowing them to do that wouldn't improve schools either.

I went to a high school where ~60 percent of the students got free/reduced lunch, which meant that their parents made less than 200% of the poverty level. In my county schools are supported primarily through property tax revenues, and most of these families rent and pay property tax only indirectly. It's a moot point though, considering private school tuition runs around 15-20 k$. Families, especially those who are trying to make ends meet, can't spend ~half their net income on a single child's education.

I had a similar case -- also from NC and did Duke's TIP -> IB/AP -> top tier state school for almost free. I think the author of the article is intentionally confusing the testing results which show how the US does on average with how students who actually end up doing science do.

That's all great, but to some extent many students will be good at science even if they go to terrible schools. Similarly, it's worth trying to give most students a basic understanding of science even if they go into another field.

There goes my slight advantage in academia due to a unique last name (a fairly common one in the Ukraine but spelled in an unusual way in English). I always hoped that it would make up for being trivial to cyber-stalk but oh well.

While no fan of Microsoft or their products, in recent years Microsoft has enjoyed record profits and I don't think "Windows 7 and Office 2010 did nothing to excite tech user" from the article is exactly true either.

Oops- too bad there is not a way to fix typos after the fact.

So there's 196 papers retracted since 2001? That's far less than the number of papers published in my subfield (condensed matter physics) each day. It's simply easier to find the tiny fraction that do cheat now that everything is more readily available.