Computer Chips Seem Poised to Shrink Again(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Computer Chips Seem Poised to Shrink Again
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/science/31compute.html?hp
5 comments
Abstract:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smll.200901100/ab...
Resistive Switching in Nanogap Systems on SiO2 Substrates Jun Yao5, Lin Zhong1,2,, Zengxing Zhang3, Tao He3, Zhong Jin3, Patrick J. Wheeler4, Douglas Natelson1,4,, James M. Tour2,3,*
Article first published online: 28 SEP 2009
DOI: 10.1002/smll.200901100
Pdf:
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~mobile/publications/yao09small.pdf
It's quite far from being proved to be feasible.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smll.200901100/ab...
Resistive Switching in Nanogap Systems on SiO2 Substrates Jun Yao5, Lin Zhong1,2,, Zengxing Zhang3, Tao He3, Zhong Jin3, Patrick J. Wheeler4, Douglas Natelson1,4,, James M. Tour2,3,*
Article first published online: 28 SEP 2009
DOI: 10.1002/smll.200901100
Pdf:
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~mobile/publications/yao09small.pdf
It's quite far from being proved to be feasible.
This is clearly one of those articles that aims to impress rather than educate. However, there are just enough keywords in the article to get on the trail:
http://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=46 — ACS Nano papers about graphene
http://www.google.com/search?q=rice+graphene&tbs=qdr:m — other press coverage
http://www.privatran.com/nano_electronics.htm — fullerene-based memory
http://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=46 — ACS Nano papers about graphene
http://www.google.com/search?q=rice+graphene&tbs=qdr:m — other press coverage
http://www.privatran.com/nano_electronics.htm — fullerene-based memory
What makes you think this has anything to do with graphene? Graphene isn't mentioned in the article, though silicon is. As far as I'm aware graphene-based transistors are still a long way from market.
The article mentions an ACS Nano paper from Rice and Jim Tour from Rice; Tour's site lists papers in ACS Nano about graphene.
The closest match I could find from your link uses buckyballs, not graphene:
“Two-Terminal Molecular Memories from Solution-Deposited C60 Films in Vertical Silicon Nanogaps,” ACS Nano 2010, 4, 1879-1888.
How can they publish such rubbish articles boggles my mind.
[Edit]: by "they" I mean the nytimes of course
“Two-Terminal Molecular Memories from Solution-Deposited C60 Films in Vertical Silicon Nanogaps,” ACS Nano 2010, 4, 1879-1888.
How can they publish such rubbish articles boggles my mind.
[Edit]: by "they" I mean the nytimes of course
>...with not even a link to the actual article.
Incidentally, how is it that a newspaper could ever report on published research without linking or citing the publications? I could never understand how common that is, not could I get a good answer from anyone in the industry.
Incidentally, how is it that a newspaper could ever report on published research without linking or citing the publications? I could never understand how common that is, not could I get a good answer from anyone in the industry.
Even the BBC, usually so good, is terrible about this. And it's not like people haven't told them, they're just terribly intransigent about it.
http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/trying-to-get-the-bbc-to-li... is Ben Goldacre writing in to the Beeb.
He later had a response ( http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/no-movement-on-the-bbcs-biz... ):
"Many thanks for your message, and interest in the site. The issue of linking to specific research papers, rather than the journals in which they appear is something with which we have long wrestled.
Linking to the journal gives the reader the chance to look at the source of the story, understand something of the wider context and get an idea of whether the research is peer reviewed. It also gives a chance to read associated information in editorials, etc, which often may be of interest. It is also a way for us to credit the journal.
We accept that linking to the specific research paper itself is often a desirable thing to do, and it is certainly something we will try to do more of in future. However, we don't believe that it is something we can do on every occasion - for instance many papers are available on the web via subscription only, while others give only an Abstract summary. In these instances, the vast majority of our readers would not be able to read the full papers, without paying for access, even if we provided the relevant link.
In addition, we do have finite resources, and our view is that our top priority should always be to provide authoratitive, accurate and attractive reportage. We have to balance that against the desirability of providing a link on a story which is likely to be of use only to a small number of our readers.
We have sent out new guidelines to reporting staff summarising our position, and stressing that linking to individual papers is something they should consider as an option on each story."
Which he (and I) thought was a bit rubbish. So it goes.
http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/trying-to-get-the-bbc-to-li... is Ben Goldacre writing in to the Beeb.
He later had a response ( http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/no-movement-on-the-bbcs-biz... ):
"Many thanks for your message, and interest in the site. The issue of linking to specific research papers, rather than the journals in which they appear is something with which we have long wrestled.
Linking to the journal gives the reader the chance to look at the source of the story, understand something of the wider context and get an idea of whether the research is peer reviewed. It also gives a chance to read associated information in editorials, etc, which often may be of interest. It is also a way for us to credit the journal.
We accept that linking to the specific research paper itself is often a desirable thing to do, and it is certainly something we will try to do more of in future. However, we don't believe that it is something we can do on every occasion - for instance many papers are available on the web via subscription only, while others give only an Abstract summary. In these instances, the vast majority of our readers would not be able to read the full papers, without paying for access, even if we provided the relevant link.
In addition, we do have finite resources, and our view is that our top priority should always be to provide authoratitive, accurate and attractive reportage. We have to balance that against the desirability of providing a link on a story which is likely to be of use only to a small number of our readers.
We have sent out new guidelines to reporting staff summarising our position, and stressing that linking to individual papers is something they should consider as an option on each story."
Which he (and I) thought was a bit rubbish. So it goes.
Wow, thanks for that. Those are exactly my feelings.
Incidentally, that (rubbish) response doesn't address the fact that at the very least they could include a citation without a link, exactly as the economist does when it discusses a research article.
Incidentally, that (rubbish) response doesn't address the fact that at the very least they could include a citation without a link, exactly as the economist does when it discusses a research article.
Because the vast majority of its readers don't care about research articles. They just want to be told something.
But it doesn't take any effort or resources to include it. It should be standard, like listing the city in which the article was written at the beginning.
[deleted]
sasare(1)
People can engineer technologies on nanoscales, but they can't pretty much repair the human body to make it last forever.
Anyone know what they're actually talking about?