When you converted 80,000 kg and 23,000 kg to pounds, it was swell of you to convert 1-2 significant digits to 5. I for one enjoy the round-off noise in the last 3 decimal places - it has premium aesthetic value. I bet those dinos probably thought the same way; losing weight must have been less depressing in terms of losing 2 pounds rather than 0.001%. On second thought, I barely know my own weight to 3 digits...
On the other hand, the president supports modest increases for NIST, NOAA, and DoE research (http://tinyurl.com/7jeeqyb). Remember that NASA isn't the only science in town, and transferring money from Mars science into telescope science is hardly "anti-science."
Did you mean "ends up being revenue?" Since the banks were taking losses from mortgage defaults, many did not turn profits until the tail end of that period.
That's RFID tags and RFID-enabled sensors, not readers.
Plus when you get to solid things, just about anything solid (buildings, trees, you name it) will absorb or reflect too. So even if you find somewhere dry, it won't leave the room. That stuff is hard enough at 60 GHz, why make it even harder above 300 GHz?
...except for the entire 3rd page. http://arstechnica.com/apple/guides/2011/08/does-this-metric-make-my-company-look-big.ars/3
Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. A mixer is an analog circuit, and silicon carbide is an expensive substrate to work with (very high processing temperatures), so it is typically only worthwhile for high-power analog devices. There is no discussion about anything digital in this article, so this is not related to programming languages or computers. Many analog devices have been made beyond 100 GHz on plain old silicon too; graphene on SiC may be important by enabling greater power density at high frequencies. As a microwave engineer, I'm excited about this, but this needs to happen on an inexpensive IC process for very small devices to be useful for digital circuits.
Or even 1e-24 if you wanna get super technical
That's a big "if." They're talking about ft of the transistor used in saturation/active mode; for most devices ft is much higher than the maximum switching speed.
Before you get yourselves worked up, realize there is no mention in this article or the original article in "Science" for applying this for computing. There's somewhat of a misstatement in the technology review article - if you look at the actual article in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5966/662), the 100GHz figure is the unity (or cutoff) gain frequency (e.g., how high of a frequency you can build an amplifier) and not switching. There is no mention of switching in the paper by the IBM scientists, and that is the application relevant to computing. Even TFA's expert is talking about using this in analog communication frontends, folks. Sorry.