Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Technology Science

IBM Tech Detects & Changes Spin of Single Electron 334

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-got-hundreds-of-those-things dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Looks like we have another step forward in Quantum Computing - IBM has discovered how to detect and change the spin of a single electron. Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Tech Detects & Changes Spin of Single Electron

Comments Filter:
  • by NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) <<ten.tsacmoc> <ta> <relyo.nhoj>> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @09:57AM (#10307833) Journal
    IBM Detects and Changes Spin of Single Election.

    Damn you Taco, and your politics section, it's corrupted my mind!
    • Goddammit, I read "election" too. I need to stop reading political things.
    • My mad physics skillz are pretty useless if whats going on isn't one big thing smashing into another big thing, so if someone out there who RTFA'd would like to tell me how this squares with Heisenberg, I'd be much obliged.
      • Re:Hmmmm. (Score:2, Informative)

        so if someone out there who RTFA'd would like to tell me how this squares with Heisenberg

        As I recall, Heisenberg states the impossibility of measuring both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. I don't think that affects changing its spin.
        • My thought was, "How the hell can you change it's spin without first measuring its position?" Again, I am a sub-atomic tyro. I guess they are not related.
        • Re:Hmmmm. (Score:5, Informative)

          by BabyDave (575083) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @11:29AM (#10308743)

          As I recall, Heisenberg states the impossibility of measuring both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.

          Yes, but it's more general.

          In QM, you measure a property of an object by applying an "operator" (you put in a function, and it spits out another function) to its wavefunction. Heisenberg said[*] that certain pairs of operators don't commute (meaning order is important - AB != BA), and so some pairs of properties can't be measured together.

          "Position and momentum" is a particular example of a pair, as is "different components of angular momentum" (L_x and L_z, say). I can't remember how 'spin' fits into things, though ...

          [*]Pedantry: Yes, I know Heisenberg talked about matrices, Schrodinger about operators.

          • Stupid question? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by einhverfr (238914)
            How exactly does quantum computing allow us to solve impossible encryption programs? I may not be a quantum physicist, but I do have some basic understanding. Of course I have a basic understanding of electronics as well but no idea how to make an AND gate out of transistors....

            The bigger use I see for this new technology isn't encryption, it is end-to-end communication without the possiblity of interception. In this event, you simply don't need to encrypt the transmission because it is impossible to in
            • Re:Stupid question? (Score:3, Informative)

              by pclminion (145572)
              How exactly does quantum computing allow us to solve impossible encryption programs?

              It doesn't. Who ever put that in the article leader was an idiot. First, there are very few truly "impossible" encryption problems. The one-time pad is one example of a cipher that is impossible to break. Quantum computing will not help us to break those types of ciphers. They truly are impossible to crack.

              What QC will help with is solving nearly impossible problems. I.e., problems which can only be solved through brut

          • Re:Hmmmm. (Score:5, Informative)

            by wass (72082) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @03:13PM (#10311560)
            I can't remember how 'spin' fits into things, though

            Spin is basically a quantized angular momentum intrinsic to many particles (electrons are spin 1/2, photons are spin 1).

            From classical mechanics (and quantum mechanics as well), linear momentum is the generator of translations and angular momentum is the generator of rotations. So linear distance and linear momentum would be canonical variables for Hamiltonian dynamics, just as well as angle and angular momentum would be.

            There are some differences, though, by noting that translations in different directions are Abelian, while rotations are non-Abelian (Abelian operations are independent of the order of the operators). You can easily see this by taking any object and rotating along the X axis and then the Y axis. You'll get a different resulting configuration than if you rotated along Y first, then X. However, if you translate in the X direction first and then the Y direction, you are in the same place as if you translated Y first, then X.

            Anyway, the generalized uncertainty principle relates the minimum uncertainty one can have through a combination of two non-commuting operators. The commutator for operators A and B is defined as [A,B]=AB-BA. The generalized uncertainty relation states that if [A,B]=i C for Hermitian operators A,B, and C (the i=sqrt(-1) is necessary for making everything Hermitian work out properly), then the product deltaA×deltaB=1/2|deltaC |(where deltaA is the uncertainty of that operator on the wavefunction (ie, deltaA=sqrt(A^2-A^2). The expectation value X is the normalized integral of the operator acting on all values of the wavefunction, giving an effective average value expected if infinitely many observations were measured.

            For example, one of the primary consequences of quantum mechanics in one dimension state that [x,p]=ihbar (I might be off by a sign here). Plug this into the generalized uncertainty relation, and you get the well-known result deltax×deltap=hbar/2. Note, this is only true if x and p are acting in the same direction. If they're in orthogonal directions, the operators commute, and the total uncertainty product can be as small as zero.

            Angular momentum operators, on the other hand, have the commutation relation [Lx,Ly]=ihbarLz, where Lx is the angular momentum operator in the x direction, and so on. What this means is that you cannot simultaneously know the x, y, and z components of the spin vector. In other words, you don't know exactly where the vector is pointing in space. For a single particle, you would be able to simultaneously know it's x, y, and z positions, but not its angular momentum. And you can see deltaLx×deltaLy=hbar/2Lz.

            So while you cannot know exactly the angular momentum of a particle, you can know a little more about it than hinted above. The operator L^2, which is a measure of the total angular momentum, commutes with the other angular momentum operators. Ie, [L^2,Lz]=0, and similar for Lx and Ly. So for a system with angular momentum, one CAN simultaneously know the total angular momentum as well as the z-component of the angular momentum. A vector in 3D space needs 3 independent components to know it exactly, but for angular momentum we can only know two exactly. So there is effectively a cone of uncertainty that any particle with angular momentum (or spin) points along.

            For the curious (if anybody even read this far) - if you studied chemistry and remember the quantum numbers for the periodic table, you'll recall n, l, m, and I think s. The l refers to the measure of total angular momentum and the m refers to the z-component of that angular momentum.


      • Heisenberg said you cannot know both the position and momentum [aip.org]. But, you can tinker with more minor attributes with complete accuracy?

        I'm also hoping someone will explain this.

        --
        Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have [brillig.com] to make his administration look good.
        • CmdrTaco mistake. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Futurepower(R) (558542) <MJennings.USA@NOT_any_of_THISgmail.com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @11:05AM (#10308494) Homepage

          Okay, one answer is that CmdrTaco got it wrong. He said, "IBM Tech Detects & Changes Spin of Single Electron". He should have said, "IBM Tech Detects & Changes Spin of Single Atom". Huge difference.

          --
          Bush's education improvements were partly fraud [cbsnews.com]
          • Re:CmdrTaco mistake. (Score:3, Informative)

            by Speare (84249)
            Did you actually read the article? Electrons which are involved in an atomic relationship have a magnetic property called 'spin.' This property can be reversed from an 'up' condition to a 'down' condition. Atoms themselves don't inherently have such a magnetic property, but if the atom's electrons are not evenly matched 'up' for 'down', then the atom is considered to be oriented to the majority.

            To reverse an atom's spin, one must influence the spin of the electrons. This technique does just that.

  • Well (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @09:58AM (#10307841)
    ... are they certain?
  • by CFD339 (795926) <andrewp@@@thenorth...com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:00AM (#10307858) Homepage Journal
    If spin can be measured in a meaningful way, the entire future of politics is suddenly up for grabs. Imagine a "spin detector" built into the home television!

    Wow. "You spin me right round, baby right round, like a record baby, right round, round round...."

  • So is IBM (Score:3, Funny)

    by kensai (139597) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:00AM (#10307861) Homepage
    the new spin doctors? j/k
  • by glrotate (300695) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:00AM (#10307865) Homepage
    How can we know it's so?
  • by Marco_polo (160898) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:01AM (#10307869) Homepage
    Electron 1: Oh my god! they've found us! what can we do? we are doomed!

    Electron 2: Oh stop being so negative

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:02AM (#10307882)
    But they will have to dramatically increase the seek time of cats before this tech will be usable as a hard drive replacement.
  • NO FAIR! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:02AM (#10307883)
    You changed the outcome by measuring it!
  • Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ggambett (611421) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:02AM (#10307890) Homepage
    It's good to see some tech companies actually innovate...
    • Re:Innovation (Score:5, Informative)

      by EyeSavant (725627) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:16AM (#10308012)
      Yeah IBM do some really good stuff. The IBM research has taken over from bell labs as being one of the best research labs around. It is such a shame bell labs went from being amazing to depressing but that is a different story. At IBM they have invented copper interconnects (seen in a lot of CPUs these days). They invented Silicon on Insulator transistors (seen in a lot of modern CPUs as well). They have done some nice work on carbon nanotubes (those have a long way to go though), and now spintronics (this has a really long way to go as well). They do a lot of really good stuff at IBM.
      • You know, I've never seen an explanation of why they went to copper interconnects and not silver. Silver is a better conductor, and the material cost doesn't seem significant.

        I'm sure there IS a good reason, I just wonder what it is.
        • You know, I've never seen an explanation of why they went to copper interconnects and not silver. Silver is a better conductor, and the material cost doesn't seem significant.

          While I don't KNOW, I can speculate:

          1) Silver oxidizes (tarnishes) very easily. Silver oxide is NOT such a great conductor. Given the extremely small size of the interconnects, this could lead to chips with EXTREMELY short service lives - like minutes. (Aluminum - copper's predecessor - oxidizes, too, but the oxide has about the
          • This is why gold metalazation (initially believed to be nearly ideal due to the difficulty of oxidizing gold) was abandoned near the start of the integrated circuit era, after the effect was discovered when the "purple plague" wiped out most of the high-tech devices - mostly discrete components in military electronics - that used it.

            Just looke it up, and it appears I've been confused about the purple plague. Actually it's not electromigration of gold into silicon, but an effect of ultrasonically bonding
      • Re:Innovation (Score:3, Informative)

        IBM also did the key work in getting the giant magnetoresistive read heads working for modern hard drives - from when the effect was discovered in Europe in 1988 with pure crystalline samples, IBM took it on and showed you could get it with cheap polycrystalline materials, had the first spin valve within six years, and a commercial hard drive within 9.
      • Re:Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:00PM (#10309055) Journal
        The IBM research has taken over from bell labs as being one of the best research labs around. It is such a shame bell labs went from being amazing to depressing but that is a different story.

        Doubly so since it didn't have to happen.

        Bell Labs was originally intended to be a boondoggle, since part of the deal for Bell's original monopoly was that they could set phone rates to make a particular profit (6%?) on every dollar they spent on building the phone system, including research. So they set up a R&D arm that was mandated to spend as much money as possible on research with some vuage connection to telephony, in the expectation of being able to make 6 cents on every dollar spent.

        It was a "failure" from the first year: They were PROFITABLE, earning/saving more money from using and licensing the results of the research than they spent on doing it. On the average, basic research pays off big-time (even if you can't tell in advance what any particular project might produce). Example: The transistor.

        Unfortunately, after the dissolution of the monopoly, the successor to Bell Labs became infected with the "Harvard Business School" style of short-term milking: Cut R&D (which costs money now and pays off later), creating a temporary boost in the profit figures followed by a collapse. Declare that you're a genius, cash out and move on to the next sucker company, leaving your successors to take the blame when the house of cards collapses.

        Fortunately, IBM has learned both of these lessons of Bell Labs, big-time (as well as the Labs' UNIX lesson of how {essentially} giving away source code leads to lots of business for computer companies) and has become a worthy successor.
  • I thought electrons were always tied with another one of opposite spin: if one is up, the other is down.

    • by merlin_jim (302773) <James.McCracken ... t a p u l t.com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:43AM (#10308279)
      That is the degenerate or lowest energy state. If the only thing in the universe is two electrons, that is.

      Materials are grouped according to how they respond to external magnetic fields as follows:

      paramagnetic materials tend (usually strongly) to line up such that their spins are opposing the existing magnetic field, and therefore attracted to it. In classical terms, magnetic field lines permeate this material and cause attraction.

      diamagnetic materials tend (usually extremely weakly) to line up such that their spins are aligned to the existing magnetic field, and therefore opposed to it. This effect is so small it usually can't be measured without very strong magnets or a carefully balanced system. Water is one of the most diamagnetic materials; if you're careful you can see the effect in one of those glitter lamps; let it settle down and still and hold a very strong magnet to the side, you can see the flow as the glitter moves away.

      ferromagnetic materials tend, like paramagnetic materials, to line up such that their spins are opposed to external magnetic fields. However, they also tend to retain that orientation when the magnetic field is removed.

      EVERY single material is one of the above. There's a proof (I forget who wrote it) saying that no static combination of electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields can be stable; that is, there is no combination of the above forces where something can be seen to levitate and balance the forces perfectly. The proof is almost correct; he didn't know there was such a thing as materials with a negative magnetic permeability (even though the permeability is slight it's enough in extreme circumstances)

      Couple cool tricks:

      1. If you've got a hugely strong electromagnet, you can float low size organic material in it. I once saw a video of a frog in a bubble of water levitating in apparent microgravity.

      2. Certain kinds of graphite are strongly diamagnetic. The dust isn't, but the graphite layers are. You can shave flat little disks off and watch them float over an array of magnets.

      3. Using bismuth and a couple neodymium magnets with a clever little gadget to help in positioning, you can make a frictionless bearing. Google if curious.

      For those curious in playing around with strong magnets... forcefield.com is your friend...
    • There are two sides to every Schwartz.

      "He's got the upside, I got the downside."
  • Impact? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by njfuzzy (734116) <ian@nOspAm.ian-x.com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:03AM (#10307897) Homepage
    So this allows read-write of qubits, right?
  • Not Electrons (Score:5, Informative)

    by Da Twink Daddy (807110) <bss03@volumehost.net> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:04AM (#10307906) Homepage

    Whew, okay. After I RTFA I realized they hadn't done the impossible, just the really hard. IBM can measured the energy required to change the spin of a single atom not a single electron. (A prerequisite of this, of course, is detecting the spin of a single atom; but that's not that difficult with electron microscopes.)

    • Re:Not Electrons (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AchilleTalon (540925) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:40AM (#10308250) Homepage
      Well, the title is not misleading at all. You are required to flip a single electron spin to flip the whole atom magnetic field orientation. So, they actually mesured the energy required to flip a single electon. Of course, they don't know which one...

      • Re:Not Electrons (Score:3, Informative)

        by hcg50a (690062)
        The title and descripive text has nothing to do with the article.

        "IBM scientists have measured a fundamental magnetic property of a single atom -- the energy required to flip its magnetic orientation."

        That is what the article is about. In the course of measuring the energy, they flipped the spin of the atom (not of an electron, nor of the components of the atom). The article doesn't even mention the spin of electrons or the components of the atom.
  • by ErroneousBee (611028) <neil:neilhancock,co,uk> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:05AM (#10307918) Homepage
    So what do we do if quantum computers can decrypt anything in almost real-time?

    All I can think of is making the data streams uninterceptable, which leads us back to encoders/decoders built using quantum entanglement.
  • by Aardpig (622459) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:05AM (#10307921)

    IBM has discovered how to detect and change the spin of a single electron.

    Measuring the spin of electrons bound to atoms was first achieved in the famous 1922 Stern-Gerlach experiment [wikipedia.org], a key stage in the discovery and understanding of quantum spin.

    However, to quote from this discussion of the experiment [phys.rug.nl], the Stern-Gerlach technique cannot be used to measure free electron spin because 'The spreading of the electron wave packet washes out the separation effect due to the electron spin'. Therefore, it appears that IBM's discovery is significant.

    • No. The (traditional) SG experiment does not measure the spin of electrons bound to atoms. It measures the spin of a beam of electrons in a magnetic field.
      (If you're sitting in front of a CRT you have such a beam in front of you, behind the glass)

      What IBM did here was flip the spin of an individual electron. That's what's new.

      They did not determine the spin in three dimensions. (That is what they are referring to in your quote.) If you measure the Z component of an electron spin, you destroy the X and Y c
      • No. The (traditional) SG experiment does not measure the spin of electrons bound to atoms. It measures the spin of a beam of electrons in a magnetic field.

        Wrong. The SG experiment was applied to a beam of silver atoms, which have a single electron in their outer shell. It cannot be practically applied to a beam of free electrons, due to the spread of the electron wavefunctions under the action of the uncertainty principle (see my original post, and also the discussion here [cornell.edu]).

  • by cyngus (753668) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:06AM (#10307925)
    Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems.

    Of course by then we'll all be using quantum encryption techniques.
  • by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig.hogger@NoSpAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:06AM (#10307929) Journal
    Overspinning electrons to overclock systems?
  • by Anonymous Coward


    Mine mine! All mine! Your ideas are all mine!!!

  • the key to rebecca (Score:5, Interesting)

    by goombah99 (560566) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:10AM (#10307966)
    Well I guess its just back to security through obscurity.

    A while back there was a proposal to have a public onetime pad system that worked like this. there is a server, perhaps a sattelite, that is streaming random numbers at say gigabytes per second. To encode a message you weakly encrypt a prior message to the recipient telling him a precise start time: say the message reads: start colleting your onetime pad at the first occurence of the first 5 digits of the number pi that come after 12 noon. you both then collect the data that comes at that time and treat ti as a shared one time pad.

    you opponents may be able to decrypt the pre-message eventually but not it time to make the start time. thus they cant collect the onetime pad data. the data rate of the random stream is chosen so that no plausible storage system could retain more than say a few hours worth of the data, so no one could just record it all. As long as no one can crack your message on that time scale you can dsafely send the one time pad whihc no one can crack by technical means.

  • by redog (574983) <.gro.sasuolepo. .ta. .cire.> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:10AM (#10307971) Homepage Journal
    This is the sort of situation where the Internet is more a hinderence than a help. Over time discussions such as this will polarize the lay community either for or against a particular area of research, wher two areas of research strive to achieve similar goals.

    Public Opinion greatly influences funding of research, so I hope that premature dabates of which technology is superior, won't shape decisions to fund one or the other, since ther is the possibility that one or the other area of research might hit a brick wall at some time in the future, at which point it wll be nessecery to pursue the other area of study. It would be bennefitial to all to have continued both areas of research in parrelel. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that discussions like this alone will influence the course of research, but merely that the colaborative enviroment the Internet offers will promote (suprisingly) colaboration to the point where only one research path will be pursued by both teams, working together, rather than competing, as it were.This is an area whewre competition is a positive thing in academic research. I merely question the degree to which the Internet actually contributes to this.
  • by American AC in Paris (230456) * on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:10AM (#10307972) Homepage
    Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems.

    Were he still alive, Andre the Giant would have something to say about this sentence.

  • What IBM doesn't relize is that the electrons they are tampering with once passed through a SCO Unix system...
  • TNG baby... we're getting closer to two of the Coolest Technologies Ever. Replicators and the Holodeck -

    Replicator:


    Today, we know how to create microchip circuits and experimental nanometer-scale objects by "drawing" them on a surface with a beam of atoms. We can also suspend single atoms or small numbers of atoms within a trap made of electromagnetic fields, and experiment on them. That's as close as the replicator is to reality. Making solid matter from a pattern as the replicator appears to do,
  • by Antti Luode (694685) <anttinorthwest@hotmail.com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:13AM (#10307991) Homepage
    They can change the spin on OReilly factor..
  • But... (Score:4, Funny)

    by nightsweat (604367) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:23AM (#10308077)
    They don't know exactly where they did this.
  • by zandermander (563602) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:26AM (#10308100)
    From the article:

    Over the past 15 years, Eigler has led a group of young scientists who have pioneered the use of atom manipulation in wide-ranging experiments aimed at building and understanding of the properties of atomic-scale structures and exploring their potential for use in information technologies such as digital logic and data storage.

    Let's see... if they were 25 when Eigler started, they're now 40! Not so young anymore!

    (it's a joke. laugh.)
  • by ThatsNotFunny (775189) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:26AM (#10308101)
    Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems.

    Who's this "we"? I still can't get my VCR to stop blinking 12:00...
  • Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems.

    How much you want to bet that the NSA already has this technology, and already solve impossible encryption problems?
  • Whats the name of that effect that says that for every electron in top spin there is a mate in down spin somewhere? And if you change the spin of one, the other mysteriously changes? Why doesn't my cell phone have this and will this get us any closer?
  • by levin (170168) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:48AM (#10308328) Homepage
    This is a big step forward in spintronics, not in quantum computing. Quantum computing is predicated on the idea that solutions to the Schrödinger equation can be a linear combination of several single-state equations; this is the case with any higher order differential equation. By detecting or explicitly setting the spin, you force the solution to be only one of these equations, and the quantum magic goes away. Great news for spintronics (using spin, not charge transporation to carry information), not news at all for quantum computing.
  • by ShieldWolf (20476) <jeffrankine.netscape@net> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @11:29AM (#10308736)
    Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems.

    Nothing impossible to solve is solvable, and nothing unsolvable is possible to solve.

    I think the word you are looking for is intractable.
  • Wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ancil (622971) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @11:42AM (#10308888)

    Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems.
    No. This flawed idea seems to have embedded itself in Slashdot. The thinking goes like this:

    Step 1. Get a 1-bit quantum computer working
    Step 2. Wire 1,024 of them together
    Step 3. Break 1,024-bit encryption!

    In reality, you now have the capability to solve 1,024 separate 1-bit problems. To solve a 1,024-bit problem, the electrons carrying each qubit need to be entangled with each other.

    Keeping things in a state of quantum entanglement is extremely difficult. The most I've ever read about was 7 qubits entangled for less than a microsecond. Note that as the number of entangled objects (particles or molecules) increases, the operation gets exponentially harder. As the time to complete an operation increases, it also gets exponentially harder. Quantum computing boosters won't tell you this, but it is not just a matter of getting a prototype working and then making it bigger.

  • Sure it will (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:00PM (#10309061)
    Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems.

    Sure it will. Right after I receive my new, wall-sized television in a poster tube, unroll it, and hang it on my wall -- as I've been promised will happen any time now for the last 20 years.

  • RTFA (Score:3, Informative)

    by Xoknit (181837) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:13PM (#10309218)
    Both the submitter and the guy who let this through should RTFA.

    It's about a single ATOM

    A-T-O-M

    not

    E-L-E-C-T-R-O-N
  • by new death barbie (240326) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:26PM (#10309397)
    ...and the neighbor's cat dropped dead. CURSE YOU IBM!!!
  • by avi33 (116048) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @03:14PM (#10311565) Homepage
    First of all, we won't be be able to crack any encryption.

    Private-key encryption will still be just as safe (most likely).

    Public key encryption based on factoring will be the first casualty.

    Given the fact that patches, fixes, and reimplementations are developed and administered all the time, there's no reason to think that fixing vulnerable systems won't be a fairly trivial re-implementation of some sort. Even if a bunch of systems are left unpatched, it's a long way from IBM labs to some script kiddie's Quantum iPod.

    There will be market-hyped hysteria, and a massive cottage industry of re-implementations of security protocols. Think Y2K but worse.

    gears? we don't need no stinking gears [usrnull.com]

"The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." -- H.L. Mencken

Working...