18 comments

[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 41.4 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
what a funny title, like they had stopped shrinking.
This is an awfully non-informative article. But apparently they've done... something! And it involves silicon oxide! And somebody stumbled upon it by accident! But for anyone with a knowledge of chip design beyond the "magic happens here" level, it's lacking in detail, with not even a link to the actual article.

Anyone know what they're actually talking about?

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

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

>...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.

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.
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.

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.

.. It's the same thing as Google bragging about their massages and catered sushi. Google is just showing that they have what their candidates care about. Your average tech employee probably wouldn't care, and would maybe even be a little put off if their employer took them to an exclusive club. My boyfriend thinks the same as I do. He is eight years older than me, lol. We met online at agegaplove``.com a nice and free place for younger women and older men, or older women and younger men, to interact with each other. Maybe you wanna check out or tell your friends.
Are you in the wrong thread?
Spambot.
(comment deleted)
People can engineer technologies on nanoscales, but they can't pretty much repair the human body to make it last forever.