A Plasmonic Revolution for Computer Chips? 188
Roland Piquepaille writes "Today, we're using basically two ways to move data in our computers: transistors carry small amounts of data and are extremely small, while fiber optic cables can carry huge amounts of data, but are much bigger in size. Now, imagine a single technology combining the advantages of photonics and electronics. This Stanford University report says a new technology can do it: plasmonics. (For more about plasmons, read this Wikipedia article.) Theoretically, it is possible to design plasmonic components with the same materials used today by chipmakers, but with frequencies 100,000 times greater than the ones of current microprocessors. There is still a challenge to solve before getting plasmonic chips. Today, plasmons can only travel a few millimeters before dying, while today's chips are typically about a centimeter across. Read this overview for more details and references about plasmonics, and to discover why it's one possible future for chips' circuitry."
Heat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alright (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Heat (Score:3, Insightful)
To see the Roland Piquepaille problem (Score:2, Insightful)
6 articles were submitted in the last month, NONE were rejected. If there were any Rejected articles, they would be displayed under a "Recent Submissions" section.
What are the chances that the Slashdot editors accept 100% of Roland's submissions, when they reject the majority of submissions from other people.
When was the last time YOU had a story accepted by the Slashdot crew?
Transistors move data? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about your computer, but my computer uses wires to move data and transistors to process said data. I don't see how one can compare transistors to fiber optic cables.
Re:Plasmonics for Invisibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alright (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wiki Free (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who has done some research on surface plasmons, I find the wikipedia article on Plasmon to be accurate and useful, so I think it is a good reference. Not all wikipedia articles are so good, but then again I don't reference the bad ones.
On the other hand, you are pointing out that we shouldn't accept wikipedia articles just because wikipedia is cool and lots of people edited the article so it must be right. Yes, that's valid. However, as with *all* sources of information, whether it is a wiki or slashdot or an encyclopedia or the local news, the end-consumer MUST use his judgement to decide if the information is valid or BS. It is an illusion to think that traditional sources of information are error free. In all cases, the reader must simply use judgement and double-check if things seem wrong.
Given time, more feasible? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe its just me, but as electronics become smaller and smaller, wouldn't this be more and more possible?
Re:Wiki Free (Score:2, Insightful)
More the fact that a person with an agenda could replace clean methodical bias free information with drivel changing the view for everyone in the process.
The original source may not have the time or inclination to maintain his articles, so the biased view remains.
It may be required in the long run to have a karma/points system - much like slashdot, where particular versions of articles can be rated and those written by established experts gain greater weight and visiblity.
An outside user could view all, uncut and raw, or they can view the cream of the crop so to speak.
The State of Roland's Mind . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on Roland, give us a break . . . you obviously don't understand what your writing about. Your analogies make no sense, your summarize is full of gross holes and you're trying to "sex-up" plasmons by calling a natural phonomena a technology and saying that it's something "new" when it is not. And seems you're doing this to attract hits to your blog so that you can sell ad space.
I know this post is harsh, but I have to say that it appears that you are attempting to exploit the /. community for your own personal financial gain. We /. readers aren't as gullible or stupid as you seem to think . . .
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Y'see, I started with a full size parachute, and each time I make a jump I use a slightly smaller chute than last time. Eventually I won't need a parachute at all!
Re:CmdrTaco's response to Roland controversy (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, Roland's writing style is terrible and his command of the technology that he writes about is lackluster at best. Consider:
He compares connectors (optical fiber) to gates (transistors) and implies that they have the same function. He leaves out key points from the article (like the issue of heat is a complete unknown in the world of plamon based chips ). His summaries are blantant rip offs of the articles where he merely combines two ideas into one sentence or vice versa, giving no editorial content of his own . . . it is all editorial content from the article that he links. I can only assume that he is simply unqualified to give free thought and personal editorial content to the material that he submits.
He is not a journalist . . . he is a poor writer that steals editorial ideas and implies that they might be his own. He peppers these ideas with his own analogies that make little to no sense.
I honestly think that he's trying to launch a career as a blogger/technology writer, but I honestly think that he should consider broadening his knowledge of technology and taking some writing courses first.
Re:Heat (Score:3, Insightful)
The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to constants;
instead of referring to pi as 3.141592653589793 at every appearance, the
variable PI can be given that value with a DATA statement and used instead
of the longer form of the constant. This also simplifies modifying the
program, should the value of pi change.
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers