
IBM Creates 1st Single Molecule Computer Circuit 148
Llowfyr writes "Yahoo has reports that IBM researchers have created the first ever single molecule computer circuits which may someday lead to a new class of smaller and faster computers that consume less power than today's machines. The IBM team made a `` voltage inverter '' -- one of the three fundamental logic circuits that are the basis for all of today's computers -- from a carbon nanotube, a tube-shaped molecule of carbon atoms that is 100,000 times thinner than a human hair. IBM scientists will present the achievement today at the 222nd National Meeting of the American Chemical Society being held in Chicago and it appears in the web edition of the ACS' journal Nano Letters."
A crystal is a single molecule. (Score:1, Troll)
A crystal is a single molecule. A transistor is a single molecular structure. It won't work any other way.
--Blair
Uhhhhh no. (Score:2)
Yuh-huh (Score:3, Informative)
Diamond is not an ionic compound. It is composed of carbon atoms in the optimal arrangement to form covalent bonds. Tell me diamond isn't a crystal.
Bonds are rarely 100% covalent or 100% ionic. A crystal is a single molecule (but not all single molecules are crystals). These facts are old. Very old. Older than your textbooks. Shame on your school.
I won't get into the semantic argument about solids, liquids, gases, and how any of them can be said to form or be formed by crystals, because that would only confuse you (and because in the more intricate cases I'm bound to forget the details and my book is in another state). Just trust that the definition of "crystal" that you are using here is very inadequate.
Go search on a few things:
Ionic Bond
Covalent Bond
Ionic Character
_General Chemistry_, by Linus Pauling*
--Blair
"We teach chemistry like it's either a foreign language about a dead religion or a way to make the neighborhood kids think we're cool."
P.S. I'd like to thank the Academy for down-modding my original post. It's always nice to see that the forces of intolerant ignorance continue to crawl the planet. It keeps an exterminator of such things in poker money.
* - the Dover 1989 reprint of the 1954 edition [amazon.com] only costs like $14. How much did you pay for a semester of your college's misapprehensions?
Re:Yuh-huh (Score:2)
A crystal is a single molecule (but not all single molecules are crystals). These facts are old. Very old.
If this (and the comment before it) suggest that crystals cannot be formed by ionic bonds then you are totally incorrect. Most crystals are formed by ionic bonds. Diamond and graphite are exceptional in this respect. The result is not "one molecule". If it is placed back into a suitable solvent it will dissolve (e.g. NaCl).
Re:Yuh-huh (Score:1)
Re:Yuh-huh (Score:1)
The whole separation of bonds into ionic and covalent bonds is a little like dividing daylight into night and day. There is difference, but it's _not_ a division. As with night and day, there's dusk, noon, evening and dawn and every shade in between.
The carbon compouds like the nanotubes and other amorphous carbon structures fall somewhere between ionic crystals and covalent molecules. For example substances like Titanium Carbide contain a whole bunch of indistinguishable bonds ranging all the way from fairly ionic to purely covalent.
The way covalent and ionic bonds are taught as exclusive alternatives, like two different types of bonds, gets torn apart after highschool when the bond gets looked at the way it should be. Roughly, as the relaxation of the electronic wave function around nearby atoms into a stable structure in the given temperature.
The division into covalent and ionic bonds may be a practical one (especially for people not at all interested in quantum/computational physics) for some compounds, but one shouldn't forget that there's a whole range of stuff between NaCl and Diamond.
Modern physics is quite embarrased that it has let the 1900's picture of litium become it's symbol, because for almost a century the physicists
haven't concidered electrons as orbiting balls.
Re:Yuh-huh (Score:2)
The fact that I almost got First Post is because: (1) it's exceptionally glaring, so it didn't take long to devise or express; and, (2) Slashdot was hiccupping that day.
The story had been online a good minute and a half before I sent my response. Time for 12-15 actual Firts Psots on a normal day.
I didn't even expect I'd be first-in on the subject of crystals as big, repetitive molecules...
--Blair
"You're faceless and your mother karmas you funny."
Re:A crystal is a single molecule. (Score:1)
Chemistry Lesson (Score:3, Informative)
Crystals are not molecules because their constituents need not appear in precise proportions (a water molecule on the other hand is ALWAYS 2 hydrogen and one water), and because you can break them into chuncks that have identical intensive chemical properties. Crystals have basic units which are molecules or single atoms and combine to form the crystal lattice (often with trace impurties which are important). Crystals are chemcially bonded together, as are many things, but this does not make them molecules (according to the classical definition).
Things like diamond, polymers, DNA, and nanotubes have come to challenge the bounds of what people label as molecules. Many people, news media, and some scientists have come to accept a broader conception of molecules as being any stable, complete (as in not attached to something), and strongly bonded (doesn't usually spontaneously disassociate) compound. Myself and others I know tend to consider this looser definition to be a foolish disregard for the important aspects of the previous definition.
Knowing that what you are studying is the smallest unit with the properties you are interested in is a powerful piece of information. Similarly knowing that this basic unit requires a particular arrangement of certain atomic types grants you the keys to understanding it.
As far as I'm concerned crystals are chemical compounds or chemical aggregates but not molecules. Same for polymers (unless the context makes it important to distinguish 40-unit from 41-unit and every other length of polymer, etc.). DNA is a molecule because every single arrangement is important to how it functions and no piece has the full chemical functionality of the whole. Nanotubes, on the face of it, seem to be polymers and thus not molecules (though I don't have enough depth in the matter to say for sure.)
So we have the first logic process made out of a polymer, but it's not a specific molecule that does the job. I'm glad chemical bonds hold their tubes together and I'm glad they make our standard transistors possible, but chemical bonding != molecule.
Re:Chemistry Lesson (Score:1)
You mean Oxygen (h2o).
Yes, I do. Sorry about that, I need to sleep more.
That's Really Cool and All (Score:2, Funny)
I like to see research of this type, but there needs to be more research with short-term effect.
That was a really lame troll of a troll (Score:1)
I want to see more advanced software for it (Score:3, Interesting)
I would want to buy one of the first nano-computers as well but I think we both would be dissapointed initially. The problem is today's machines are already over powered for what most I would be more interested in something that takes advantage of the smallness and lots of extra CPU power. As it is today's desktops are way overpowered for most applications. MY computer compiles all my code in a blink of an eye and if you lowered the CPU speed by a few hundred megahertz, I would probably not even know the difference. What I am waiting for are nano-computers integrated in nail polish, wall paper, and clothes with verbal interfaces like Star Trek TNG. Would it be sweet to have you clothes download the next style automatically instead of buying new clothes or wouldn't it be cool to say "computer, play cnn news", and your whole wallpaper turns into a television screen playing the news.
With embedded nano-based technology this will be a reality. I have serve ADHD and if I can have a computer do real research with a verbal interface and advanced AI to interpret what I ask, and retrieve the data, I could write a research paper in a third of the time. No more library visits! It's all retrieved for me. I love LCARS on star trek's enterprise D where you can receive and information you wanted just by asking.
My guess is the first generation of nano-desktops will be mediocre because they will run the same software as today, or Microsoft will take years to write a version of windows for it so it stays locked up in R&D labs for years. Kind of like IA-64 syndrome. It already runs Linux but Intel wont release it because Microsoft is not done writing windows for it. I guess the business world does not see reality existing outside of windows. Sigh.
Anyway the extra apps like IA, verbal speech recognition, advanced clustering, pixel generation, and advanced networking would come years after the technology is out. Perhaps the Gnu community can address these needs as corporations will try to propritize the market and exploit it for high prices.
oops (Score:2)
I was cuting and pasting two paragraphs and I scrwed up.
I meant to say " The problem is, today's machines are already over powered for what most people actually use them for. I would be more interested in something that takes advantage of the smallness and lots of extra CPU power."
Boy do I feel like an idiot.
Re:I want to see more advanced software for it (Score:1)
You're kidding me. You're letting some commercial tell you what to buy instead of getting what appeals to you? As soon as the commercial tells you that your clothes aren't good anymore (but last year they were a necessity), the clothes suddenly go from good to bad? What changed from last year?
Re:That's Really Cool and All (Score:1)
Think about research in general. Intel had computers that would function at or above the 1GHz threshold nearly 10 years ago. Plastics were invented before WWII by government contractors but didn't see mainstream use until the late 40s early 50s. And even more importantly than that, computers were invented by research insititutions way before you could have purchsased one for your personal use.
So I wouldn't really be complaining too much. Good things come to geeks that wait.
If everything was "invented" with only the quick time to market approach in mind, then we would have lots of crappy inventions with only no long term possibilities.
Oops My cell is ringing. (Hummm . . . total mobile communication, that was available to military units in vietnam but not publically available to the public until much later.)
Some weird title (Score:2, Funny)
Erm, what was the question again?
Re:Some weird title (Score:1)
What groundbreaking achievement will IBM announce soon?
i wonder (Score:1)
Well... this surely looks like another great step towards high performance computing!
Re:i wonder (Score:2, Interesting)
Once it starts to break down for silicon-transistor circuits, the "capacity" metrics will be transferred to whatever follows.
The interesting thing about Moore's law is that it may be unprovably vague.
Einstein posed a theorem he said he never could prove:
How this relates to Moore's law is if you replace distance with transistor count, then along the way you will find intervals where you have doubled the transistor count in 18-24 months.
This feature allows hypesters every once in a while to prove to themselves that "it still works" to whatever precision they desire.
But they're not entirely dishonest, since this only works because Moore's law has a long-term stable average.
--Blair
?? (Score:1)
so you have P(t) your position on the path at time t, so that P(0)=A and P(T)=B (it took T hours, (T>1 because (B-A)>v miles) to get from A to B)
So let's call F(t) the function that gives you at any time (in hours) the distance you are going to travel the next hour according to the trajectory P.
Clearly, F is continuous on [0, T-1] because P is continous on [0,T] and F(t) is P(t+1)-P(t)
F could be always equal to v (v=(B-A)/T).
It would mean your speed is constant during the travel and is v, so that at any time, you are going to travel v miles the next hour.
Clearly, F can't be always less than v, because then your average speed would obviously be less than v.
Also, F can't be always greater than v, because then, your average speed would obviously be greater than v.
So, either F(t)=v either we have 2 instants t0 and t1 (t0
F(t0)>v and F(t1)v
Since F is continuous on [t0, t1] there is a value t, to
So who is that Joe Einstein you're talking about ?
Anyway, I understand your anology, but I don't get your whole point (seems that you wanted to say several things at once or I'm just too tired)
:) (Score:1)
it is:
we have to instants to and t1 (to lt t1) and to and t1 within [0,T-1]
and with
F(t0) gt v and F(t1) lt v
or
F(t0) lt v and F(t1) gt v
so, since F is continuous on [t0,t1] there is a value t, t0 lt t lt t1 such that F(t)=v.
So, F(t)=v has at least one solution within [0,T-1] and the question is thus answered.
blablabla....
Re:i wonder (Score:2)
It doesn't affect them much. It's good to have a proof of concept for a nanotube NOT gate, but it leaves open questions of manufacturing and connectivity which would be crucial to creating a real technology from this kind of circuit element. I don't think anyone doubted that nanoscale gates were possible, but what is more questionable is how they can be economically assembled and effectively interconnected.
Tim
Re:i wonder (Score:1, Flamebait)
Meanwhile, your name insults you, you have no karma, and your posts are moderated down by default.
You do the math.
--Blair
"Who loves ya baby."
* - They used to be first, but people stopped buying cell-phones, and the whole transistorized-crap market went south from there. Now the money's in gasoline and baby clothes.
Re:Can you imagine.. (Score:1)
Of course, there are many other intriguing fields of research that this opens up, such as the problem of making a processor that consists of only 1 nanotube and creating some kind of networking interface that would allow individual nanotubes to communicate.
So please, before you go off blindly moderating posts such as these, please think of the questions that they are really asking, rather than your ingrained Slashdot instincts.
You'd need to use scanning electron microscope... (Score:3, Funny)
Gain? (Score:1)
Ok, lots of smart people on /. someone explain this please. Because the article sure doesn't!
Re:Gain? (Score:1)
Re:Gain? (Score:4, Informative)
A transistor is a three-terminal device. In a typical computer chip, these three terminals are called the source, the drain, and the gate. For a given voltage between the source and drain, the current that flows into the drain is strongly dependent on the voltage applied to the gate. That's what allows transistors to be used as switches: you can make a transistor that won't let current flow from source to drain unless the gate voltage is turned up past some value.
Achieving actual gain in a single-molecule device is important. Without gain greater than one, it's not possible to efficiently chain large numbers of transistors together to manipulate signals. A strong input would get degraded with each stage of transistor manipulation, eventually falling to a level too small to drive subsequent transistors.
There are *many* problems with the idea of using individual molecules to replace Si devices. Achieving a gain > 1 is a necessary but by no means sufficient step for eventual molecule-based computers. As a physicist, I think it's important to recognize real achievements in this field, but not to buy into the hype unquestioningly.
huh... (Score:3, Funny)
Dammit. Back in my day, we had real transistors, and silicon. We made chips out of SAND, dammit! None of this molecule pish posh. I ain't never gonna use some computer made from plants. You new-age scientists sure are ungrateful...
Re:huh... (Score:1)
Why is this under ASK SLASHDOT?? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Why is this under ASK SLASHDOT?? (Score:1)
---
"A man alone in the forrest talking to himself. Is he still wrong?"
Very nice... (Score:2, Funny)
Also on news.com (Score:1)
(In case you may want to check)
There is an ominosity to this whole nano thing (Score:1)
Since IBM has successfully made a NOT gate out of a single molecule, they have made about 1/3 progress towards realizing a complete computer system made out of molecules. In fact, if they could make NAND gates out of these nanotubes, then they have everything they need to build a computing system since a NAND gate is functionally complete. Question is, does this mean that in the near future, the government will be able to implant invisible microchips in people for identification and tracking purposes, and what does this mean? Is this a bad thing looming in the future?
not the government (Score:1)
Re:big fuck-de-do (Score:1)
100,000 times thinner than a human hair (Score:2)
There is hope for us blonds yet.
Re:100,000 times thinner than a human hair (Score:2)
Re:100,000 times thinner than a human hair (Score:3, Insightful)
100,000 times thinner, reduced by 200%, 3 times less power...
I see what they mean, most of the time (although the 200% is kinda vague) but if you mean 1/100,000th as thick, that is not really the same as 100,000 times thinner. I tend to view thin and thick as complements under addition, not reciprocals.
mutter mutter. Pedants are never bored, but tend to be boring.
Re:AND and OR? (Score:1)
You only need NAND to do whatever you want.
NAND(A,A) => NOT(A)
NAND(NAND(A,A),NAND(B,B)) => OR(A,B)
etc..etc.. realy not that hard..
For most logic implementations, this is the way it is done. (although sometimes NOR is used instead).
Anyway, have a look at Randall Hyde's Art of Assembly for a source you can trust about it.
The idea is, NAND gates are cheaper than other gates, and it's easier to build logic structures with the same basic blocks.
Re:AND and OR? (Score:1)
The most widely-used building block of modern computer circuits is the transistor. They come in 2 basic flavors, n-type and p-type. The difference, in layman's terms, is that n-types switch current on, and p-types switch current off. This was covered pretty well.
The computer world works in terms of binary logic functions, so we use transistors to build logic circuits. The simplest logic circuit that can be built is an inverter (NOT gate, etc). This takes 2 transistors (one of each type). Doing this on a molecule level is what IBM has just accomplished.
By itself, the NOT function is hardly useful, since it has only one input. To perform complex calculations, we use functions like OR, AND, NOR, NAND, XOR, etc, which have 2 inputs. As it turns out, the ones that human beings comprehend easily (AND and OR) are not the easiest to build, transistor-wise. NAND and NOR each require 4 transistors to build (two of each type), and have similar layouts. This is convenient because both functions (as mentioned) can be used exclusively to generate any possible binary function.
In practice, NAND gates are used most often in computer logic. Why? Although they are equally easy to build, the NOR gate requires you to stack two p-type transistors on top of each other. Due to their electrical characteristics, p-type transistors are significantly slower than n-type ones. Stacking them together only exacerbates the performance problem. Hence, we use NANDs whenever possible.
However, we still see a significant number of NOR gates in most computer architectures. The reason? NOR gates are the fundamental building block of flip-flops (a circuit that can "remember" a value), which are combined to make registers. Since RISC architectures tend to have a lot of registers (both visible and hidden in the pipeline system), we see plenty of NOR gates as well.
-- Brett
Re:AND and OR? (Score:1)
I really don't see how this is different than what I was saying. (besides being more detailed)
:)
Oh well... doesn't matter
Re:AND and OR? (Score:1)
Oh
Art of Assembly? No thanks
Why not ? is it that bad ? Anyway, the book is at most introductive to logic, but it's still a good read.
This is the classic case of
This is the classic case of someone generalizing about slashdot.
First I don't think I know everything about something I don't practice everyday.
Second, I don't think I know everything about things I actualy practice everyday either. Neither should you.
blablabla
err.. alright,
hmmm AOI, and or invert
OAI or and invert
I don't think custom layout use only nand gates, and I didn't say so, I said NAND are the most comonly used blocks for circuits design.
I might be wrong I honestly don't witness it everyday
Still, that's what I learnt I school (though it was realy introductive, oh well, they always tell us they lied last year the year after don't they ?).
Anyway, the point was that having a NAND built out of ANDs and NOTS might be intuitive, it is not necesarily what happens at circuit design.
Using AOI gates to build XOR or whatever is a good example of the point I was trying to make.
So calm down, get some sleep, whatever...
In case you insist, the point was:
Basic building blocks aren't the one you might think, at least, not for the reason that was given. (boolean algebra operators, blablabla).
So I think, I heard it from several sources, that NAND gates are in fact the most used, for the given reasons that are very dependent of (time/technology/specific design/etc..)
If you tell me the earth is a ball because it's the best shape to fly in the air,
then I tell you earth doesn't fly in the air, and by the way, I have heard it is in fact a cube,
I'm obviously mistaken, and in the end, you might end being correct, but your logic was flawed anyway.
Re:AND and OR? (Score:2)
A transistor either switches a current path off (output_on = power_on AND NOT control_on) or it switches it on (output_on = power_on AND control_on).
Those are the real building blocks. Larger structures like gates and flip-flops are combinations of those two facts.
Some circuits use multi-leveled logic, but those have to be converted to boolean logic* before they can get anywhere near your computer.
--Blair
* - or whatever passes for it at the NY Times...
Re:AND and OR? (Score:2)
IOW, don't mistake my populist renaming of the ports as inexperience.
--Blair
The next step (Score:1, Informative)
Re:The next step (Score:1)
I like this (Score:1)
The Hair (Score:2)
Just tell me big the damn thing is in regular units: meters, angstroms, astronomical units, whatever.
Re:The Hair (Score:1)
Re:The Hair (Score:1)
Still, kudos to them for posting references to papers published by the research group.
Re:The Hair (Score:2)
Re:The Hair (Score:1)
A typical scalp hair is about 4/1000 of an inch. A standard machine shop tolerance is 1/1000. And there is a big difference between 0.999 and 1.000 when you're trying to fit an exact 1.000 bushing into a hole. One will give you a press fit, and the other a slide fit. 4 thousands of an inch is often not even an acceptable tolerance.
But since Joe Average has never been seen a vernier caliper in his life, he's got no clue how thick a piece of paper or a human hair is. All he knows is that it's thin and that if something's 100,000 times thinner, it's VERY thin.
Then again, I have trouble imagining anything smaller than 1/10,000th of an inch. There are just some things that are very hard to visualize.
bart
Re:The Hair (Score:2)
Hair diameter is a tried-and-true, reputable engineering metric. Every engineer has talked about something being a 'CH' or 'RCH' or 'BCH' too big or too small for a given application. It's therefore very natural that multiples of hair size would be used to describe other very small distances.
Perhaps this is only true for engineers of a particular generation and older. But it's a usage with plenty of tradition.
--Trevor
1/100,000 is probably incorrect (Score:1)
I doubt that in the extreme. 40 atoms I might believe - perhaps some journalist made a typo / miscaluation / misquote and added an extra zero to 10,000.
As the saying goes, "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you read."
Re:1/100,000 is probably incorrect - follow up (Score:1)
How original! (Score:1)
Jeez.. I hope whoever to persue this "smaller, faster, more efficient" idea a raise.. What a novel idea...
For those of us who would like a bit more info... (Score:5, Informative)
I was just thinking - they say their NOR gate is the size of approx. 1/100,000th the width of a human hair. Well, today's 1.4 GHz chips contain ~22 million transistors. That would make it 220 human hairs wide. That's a lot of power in a small space. I can't wait till the day I can crack RC5 on my cell phone.
Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. (Score:2)
Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. (Score:1)
Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. (Score:1)
Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. (Score:1)
Re:For those of us who would like a bit more info. (Score:1)
I think the great achievement is represented by the _potential_ that carbon nanotubes have in miniaturisation. For the moment the lenght of the
transistor's chanel is 250nm which is in range of today's technology - 180-130 nm.
The problem is: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that with all this power, we still have lazy programmers that aren't writing cleaner, more efficient code, basically negating all the advances that have been made in processing technology. I mean, computers today are a million times faster than they were years ago, but do we see any major increase in speed?
Re:The problem is: (Score:1)
"The actual speed of operation is a constant."
Eg - for each breakthrough in transistor density and such like, there is some naff mathematically nice nonsense like Java which runs like a lame donkey after a heavy meal, and is practically useless unles you can boost the power of your computer by an order of magnitude
Incompetent programmers always blame the tool (Score:1)
Re:Incompetent programmers always blame the tool (Score:1)
Java epitomizes lazy programmers. If you want your code fast and efficient, write your own memory management and storage structures. Write your own threading. I'm guessing you'll be compiling and linking it, not running ing a virtual machine.
And yes, I'm a Java developer. But only after almost 10 years of C/C++.
Re:The problem is: (Score:1)
Code today is written to the specifications given and time allotted. It's done with the tools and information provided. We all know our code could be better. We know there are techniques out there by which we would benefit. The quality of the product is directly related to the financial gain and risk.
It's just like any other business. We could be riding in ultra-safe cars, with ultra-efficient engines. We could be living in bigger homes that cost less to heat or cool. Hell, they could even make a scissors that's safe to run with. But it's not cost effective.
And then there are those who think Java is the best computing language. You think that garbage collection is free? You think that Hashtable or Vector is an efficient way to store your information? You think the JVM isn't wasting cycles you might put to better use? You talk about lazy programmers.
You think it's hard adding components now...? (Score:1)
Now where did I put those molecular-tweezers???
Images to go with the article (Score:3, Interesting)
Check out the pictures and graphics [ibm.com] that IBM has made available.
And let us not dwell on the fact that I submitted a better version of this article early in the morning with more links than the one they decided to go with(sulking ends now).
Universal Gates (Score:1)
"Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows him?"
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Universal Bill (Score:1)
To install Windoze 2020 service pack 13 on a
molecular computer...
In a related story... (Score:1)
A day for being pissed off, it seems. . . (Score:1)
The choreographed pace at which they're releasing this 'new' tech is such a stupid joke.
Read a few headlines down, (or up), where they're talking about successes in neuron/computer engineering techniques.
Oh, goody.
You do realize the League of Evil will require people to plug their brains in directly at some point? And the morons who suck up the Cyberpunk daydream where this is actually something desirable, (what? There are idiots like that present on Slashdot? Oh my!), are being used to buffer and in fact sell this horror to the world?
Yep. Sell it to the tech-heads, and you shape the world. The tech-heads have almost all the social muscle these days and not even they seem to fully realize it.
Why do you think it's so miserable to be alive if you live life as you have all been told? That is, working 8:00 to 6:00 jobs. Sucking up social programming which serves to render impotent relationships, one of the most powerful forces of stability and good energy; now perverted into over-sexed, short term, disappointing & miserable transactions. Thanks to James Cameron, the perfect boyfriend must now die of hypothermia in the North Atlantic, for crying out loud!
We've been programmed to eat unhealthy food with too many chemicals. Jeezus! Bread with everything. (There's almost no worse food combo out there!) Leading to poor health and further misery.
Enter the tech-heads.
Why do you think there have been so many episodes of Star Trek made with Holodeck fantasies? Do you think the Forces of Evil would allow such a virtuous show as Star Trek to exist if it wasn't the carrier for some toxin?
Grr.
Is nobody tuned into the same station as me? Am I the only one who can see this shit? Is nobody else scared out of their freeking minds? (Well, actually I'm not really all that scared; I'd describe my reaction as being something more akin to a fascination on an anthropological level. Watching exactly how the end of the world arrives is possibly the most amazing thing I'll ever see.)
Still, I can't believe that people are going to actually line up to be the first to plug their brains into the Matrix. Man! Now that is a sell job!
I mean, isn't face recognition in Borders Books already creepy enough? No! People want Microsoft and Echelon and **AMERICA** in their heads at night when they sleep! Digitize awareness! With everybody plugged into 'Friends' and 'Ally-McBeal,' nobody will even notice, much less rebel when the sky falls.
Part of me almost hopes that somebody does drop a vial by accident and wipes out 5.9 billion people on this globe. I'd almost rather take my chances at being one of the lucky survivors than continue watching this bullshit parade and the naivete of all the silly viewers.
-Fantastic Lad. The Craziest Fuck In ANY Room!
P.S. Most artists and media producers don't even realize where their ideas come from. Population control doesn't happen on a surface level anymore. Hasn't for a long, long time.
Re:A day for being pissed off, it seems. . . (Score:1)
You are correct. No one else is tuned in. I'm thinking you've had a bit of alcohol in your surrogate.
Ahh. (Score:1)
Thank me later when you wake up.
-Fantastic Lad
Re:A day for being pissed off, it seems. . . (Score:1)
Note to moderators: Wake the fuck up!
Of course, you'll mod this down to -1 in about a nanosecond or two, so why do I bother?
same ol stuff (Score:1)
But IBM is not unaccustom to doing this sort of press release simply for the publicity of it.
I seem to remember a press release (which they had to buy add space to get it published I guess) back in the early 90's. 92 or 93 maybe. They claimed to have created the worlds first 1024 bit cpu.
I wouldnt suggest they are building this stuff for PR. I am just saying that is the purpose of the press release (just like most articles of this sort). Oh ya, someones cool project at IBM needs to keep getting funding of course.
Just dont assume it will be useable for anything practicle in OUR lifetime.
It took 20 years to get from 8 bit to 64 bit. And most of us use 32 bit just like we did 10 years ago.(this refers to commodity hardware, not the big iron).
Ah screw it.Never mind. Its cool stuff no matter what the press geeks do with it.
Re:same ol stuff (Score:1)
diode laser drivers (Score:1)
Tech Support (Score:1)
"voltage inverter?" (Score:3, Informative)
How do "holes" carry current? (Score:1)
If so, I don't see the difference between electrons carrying current and holes carrying current.
Re:Blacks, Caucasians, Indians (Score:1)
Re:Blacks, Caucasians, Indians (Score:1)
Re:Blacks, Caucasians, Indians (Score:1)