Your World On A Pen Tip

It’s one of the truisms of our Tech Age that computing capacities are rising while processor sizes are falling. That hasn’t been lost on University of Michigan researchers who have developed a computer which fits on the tip of a pen.

This is a special-purpose computer designed for one specific task, notes Dick Eastman, who blogs on genealogy, computers and technology.

“It does not contain a keyboard or a video screen,” he writes. “All output is performed by a wireless radio with an antenna that can transmit data to an external reader.”

The millimeter-scale computing system can hold up to a week's worth of data when implanted in something as small as a human eye.

The computer, called the Phoenix chip, is just over one cubic millimeter in size and was designed to monitor eye pressure in glaucoma patients.

“This is the first true millimeter-scale complete computing system,” says Dennis Sylvester, a professor at the school and one of the researchers on the project.

Within the computer is an ultra low-power microprocessor, a pressure sensor, memory, a thin-film battery, a solar cell and a wireless radio, according to Eastman.

The micro computers and their wireless networks also could one day be used to track pollution, monitor structural integrity, perform surveillance, or make virtually any object smart and trackable, researchers say.

Not Any Chip

The Phoenix chip sips power. It has a power-gating architecture with an extreme sleep mode that wakes the computer up briefly every 15 minutes to take readings, and it uses an average of just 5.3 nanowatts each time it turns on, writes Lucas Mearian for computerworld.com.

The Phoenix chip has a photovoltaic charging system which requires 10 hours of indoor light or 1.5 hours of sunlight to fully charge the battery.

The chip's micro radio automatically tunes into whatever wireless frequency is available in order to download data to a reader. The data can then be used as part of an electronic medical record for treatment.

“Our work is unique in the sense that we're thinking about complete systems in which all the components are low-power and fit on the chip,” Sylvester says. “We can collect data, store it and transmit it. The applications for systems of this size are endless.”

What Lies Beyond

Researchers in this field point to Bell's Law, which states that there's a new class of smaller, cheaper computers about every decade. With each new class, the volume shrinks by two orders of magnitude and the number of systems per person increases.

The law, named for computer engineer and manager Gordon Bell (above right) has held true from the mainframes of the 1960s through the personal computers of the 1980s, the notebooks of the 1990s and the today's smartphones, they say.

“When you get smaller-than-handheld devices, you turn to these monitoring devices, says David Blaauw, another professor and Phoenix chip researcher at the University of Michigan.

“The next big challenge is to achieve millimeter-scale systems, which have a host of new applications for monitoring our bodies, our environment and our buildings,” Blaauw says.

One Eastman blog reader asks: “How small can a computer be and still be useful? How about cell phones with quad-core processors? They'll be here by Christmas.”

With smartphones becoming like electronic wallets, the blog reader is probably right. It's a small world after all ... and getting smaller all the time!

Ken Cocuzzo

Graphene Can Speed Tech

Two Russian-born scientists will share the 2010 Nobel Prize in physics for “groundbreaking experiments” with the thinnest and strongest material known to mankind. Graphene is vital for the development of faster computers and new transparent touch screens.

Two professors from the University of Manchester, Andre Geim (left) and Konstantin Novoselov (right), used Scotch tape to isolate graphene, a form of carbon only one atom thick but more than 100 times stronger than steel. The material demonstrates exceptional physical properties, according to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Experiments with graphene may lead to the development of new super-strong material, which may be used to make satellites, airplanes, cars, as well as innovative consumer electronics, everything from super-small computers to high-capacity batteries.

Geim compares this new material -- densely packed in a honeycomb crystal lattice -- to the same magnitude as plastic when it was first discovered and could revolutionize the world.

“Graphene is stronger and stiffer than diamond, yet can be stretched by a quarter of its length, like rubber. Its surface area is the largest known for its weight. It has all the potential to change your life the same way plastics did,” Geim says. “It is really exciting.”

“It’s about the smallest you can get,” Novoselov told Wired Science. “From the point of view of physics, graphene is a goldmine. You can study it for ages.”

Further, the Nobel academy said computers will become more efficient since “graphene transistors are projected to be substantially faster than today’s silicon transistors.

“Since graphene is practically transparent and a good conductor, graphene is suitable for producing transparent touch screens, light panels, and maybe even solar cells,” according to the academy.

Geim, 51, is a Dutch national; Novoselov, 36, holds British and Russian citizenships. Both scientists started their careers in physics in their native Russia.

They first worked together in the Netherlands before moving to Britain. They began isolating graphene in 2004, and many experiments have been in process around the world ever since.

Novoselov is the youngest Nobel
winner since 1973. The prize, worth $1.5 million, typically goes to scientists with decades of experience.

Alfred Nobel, (1833-1896), was a Swedish chemist, engineer, innovator, armaments manufacturer and the inventor of dynamite. He created the awards, first presented in 1901.

“It is a shock, “ Novoselov says of his selection. “I started my day chatting over Skype over new developments – it was quite unexpected.”

The two scientists used simple Scotch tape as a crucial tool in their experiment. They peeled off thin flakes of graphene from a piece of graphite, a material found in pencil leads.

Paolo Radaelli, a physics professor at the University of Oxford, says he marvels at the simple methods used by Geim and Novoselov. “In this age of complexity, with machines like the super collider, they managed to get the Nobel Prize,” Radaelli says.

“This was a well-deserved award,” says Phillip F. Schewe, spokesman for the American Institute of Physics in College Park, Md.

Graphene – the thinnest material in the world and one of the strongest materials – is an excellent conductor. Electrons move through the material very quickly and it acts like a superconductor.

Graphene is a good material for making integrated circuits. ICs are small chips with millions of transistors which serve as the backbone of our modern-day telecommunications.

WMB also believes this material may be used in automotive and construction applications. But it will likely be years before the material is used by our manufacturers.

This post is by TechMan, WMB co-author who blogs about trends, ideas and issues affecting business, industry, technology and consumers. If you like this post, please share with family, friends and colleagues.

Failing Grades For Our Schools

Many throughout America believe our public schools are failing because they lack proper funds. Nothing can be further from the truth.

In WMB’s view, there are foundation problems with the U.S. education system and, until these issues are addressed, no amount of taxpayer money will cure the ills.

We believe there are five fundamental areas underscoring these problems, and we’ve compiled these areas from Education-Portal.com.

Accountability Lacking

The public education system is rarely held accountable for the undereducated students it produces. Schools have the ability to ignore parents and those without a financial connection.

If schools are riddled with poor teachers, nothing is done. Teachers keep their jobs and the public school stays open.

No one wastes time on the concept of customer satisfaction. After all, the customers are merely uneducated kids who really don’t care until it’s too late and then they can’t compete in the global market.

Funding for American pupils has tripled since 1960, according to the U.S. Department of Education. But our kids aren’t competitive with other children throughout the world.

Wasted Funds

Despite higher-than-average per pupil expenditures, public-educated students in the United States are lagging with public-educated children from other countries.

American public schools receive an average of $9,969 per student, according to the DOE. This is twice the amount spent per student at private and charter schools.

Those who run public schools don’t have personal risk involvement and no incentive to cut costs or increase revenue.

When a school performs poorly, more often than not, the school receives even more money. Without public outrage, funds surely will be wasted.

Political Agendas

Public schools are not required to answer to parents, but they do need to heed the words of politicians and school board members. It would not be an exaggeration to say these “other” agendas are weakening the entire system.

Schools and teachers are frequently forced to deal with supposedly brilliant education plans thought up by state judiciaries, legislatures, and bureaucracies. Taxpayers are then expected to pay the bill to initiate the plans.

For this reason alone, a separation of school and state may be beneficial. By eliminating interfering politicians, and yielding power to parents and teachers, true accountability is possible.

One Size Doesn’t Fit All

There is no one-size-fits-all prescription, but that is what most students receive in public education. Gifted students often take the same classes as students who need tutoring.

In rural areas, it's rare to find advanced placement courses or other academic advantages that will allow students to excel.

Good teachers aren’t given a chance to spread their wings because they are forced to follow in lockstep the plans laid out before them. In the end, our children and our society are hurt by this approach.

No Child Left Behind

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 approved under the George W. Bush administration was intended to “fix” our public schools. Instead, it has resulted in more damage to the system.

Under this law, extreme emphasis is placed on test scores and punitive action. Even worse, many school districts have been forced to train students for NCLB tests versus offering them the education they deserve.

Even though the House Committee on Education & Labor refers to this act as “unfair,” there is little evidence that NCLB has accomplished anything positive since its inception.

WMB believes children need to get back to the basics of reading, writing and mathematics.

Sure, computers are necessary in our technological society, but it's equally important to be able to do things manually, without benefit of gadgets, think independently and creatively.

Just witness what happens when store checkout computer scanners go offline, and young cashiers have to use simple math in providing change, logging coupons and adding a total the old-fashioned way ... with pen and paper.

Such situations serve only to remind us that our education tax dollars are not being spent to full advantage because of a flawed public education system.

This post is by TechMan, WMB co-author who blogs about trends, issues and ideas affecting business, industry, technology and consumers. If you like this post, please share it with family, friends and colleagues!

New Computing Boon Beckons

Digital technology boosts many facets of research and development, with the computer serving as the single biggest invention drawing us into the future. Nowhere is that more apparent than with recent innovations in hardware architecture and growing use of multicore computer processing units.

The generalization of graphics processing units, and the imminent leap available between CPU and GPU cores, make a new era of interactive graphics possible. As a result, we will begin to see PCs and gaming consoles with unprecedented levels of color saturation, realism, and “immersiveness.”
But current graphics programming models known as Application Programming Interfaces were developed for the previous-generation GPU-only rendering pipelines. This severely hampers the type and quality of images possible on these systems.

Interactive Graphics Driving Innovation

Programmable graphics is the next step in interactive graphics development. This new era of imagery will cooperatively use the CPU, GPU, and complex data structures to efficiently synthesize future images according to next-generation software apps.

Next-generation interactive graphics programming models for these architectures are being developed and require new programming models, tools, and rendering systems designed to take full advantage of these new parallel heterogeneous systems. New graphics techniques, algorithms, and rendering engines that showcase unprecedented visual quality are making these images possible.

The single-processor computer is being replaced by parallel heterogeneous systems made up of processors supporting multiple styles of computation. CPU architects are no longer able to improve computational performance of the traditional heart of the computer system.

Instead of increasing clock speed, engineers are now providing a rapidly-increasing number of parallel coarse-grained cores, currently capable of delivering approximately 90 GFLOPS. (GFLOPS is 1 billion floating point operations per second).

Simultaneously, graphics processing units have evolved to be efficient fine-grained data-parallel co-processors that deliver much greater raw floating-point horsepower than today’s multi-core CPUs. New processors from AMD can produce 400 GFLOPS of peak performance via hundreds of computational units working in parallel.

In addition, although CPUs and GPUs have traditionally been separated by low-bandwidth and high-latency communication pathways, rapidly-improving interconnect technology (for example, AMD Torrenza and Intel Geneseo) and the promise of integrating CPUs and GPUs on a single chip (for example, AMD Fusion) allow CPUs and GPUs to share data much more efficiently. This enables graphics applications to intermix computational styles to optimally use the system’s computational resources.

Interactive 3D computer graphics is now the most computationally demanding consumer application. The economic force of the computer gaming industry and its appetite for computational power have driven the rapid development of current GPUs. In addition, the GPU programming model represents perhaps the only widely-adopted parallel programming model to date.

Unfortunately, this model assumes a GPU-only, unidirectional fixed-graphics pipeline. Creating a new programming model for interactive graphics which fully exposes the computational and communication abilities of these new architectures is necessary to enable a revolution in the quality and efficiency of interactive graphics and provide a killer app for these platforms.

The last five years have seen a significant amount of innovation in interactive graphics software and hardware; GPUs have progressed from being configurable fixed-function processors to highly-programmable data-parallel co-processors, while CPUs have evolved from single-core to task-parallel multicore processors.

The promise of programmable graphics illustrates the fact that GPU programmability has implications for computer graphics. User-defined data structures and algorithms are bringing tremendous flexibility, efficiency, and image quality improvements to interactive rendering.

What Our Future Could Bring

We are at the threshold of a new era of interactive computer graphics. We are no longer limited to today’s brute force, unidirectional rendering pipeline. Developers will soon be able to design adaptive, demand-driven renderers that efficiently and easily leverage all processors in new heterogeneous parallel systems.

New rendering algorithms that tightly couple the distinct capabilities of the CPU and the GPU will generate far richer and more realistic imagery, use processor resources more efficiently, and scale to hundreds both CPU and GPU cores.

We believe this new technology will be a boon for processor and chip manufacturers, including Intel and AMD. As applications such as 3D become more sophisticated, consumers will embrace these new technologies with vigor.

Apple, Google, Microsoft and other companies will seize new opportunities as the hardware and software technologies continue to evolve.

This post is from TechMan, WMB co-author who blogs about trends, issues and ideas affecting business, industry, technology and consumers.

Dear Applicant, Don't Bother

As much as computers, the Internet and other electronic advances have brought us together, they also keep us apart. Face-to-face communication, personal letters and even phone conversations have been replaced by e-mail and texting.

OK, there’s no putting the technology genie back in the bottle, and who would argue with innovative gadgets which help us in our everyday lives. But there are downsides to this progress: diminished human contact in the form of communication walls that contribute to an impersonal, hands-off existence.

Take the case of job applicants today. Many employers have gone “paperless” for economic and environmental reasons. Or, in the case of a few employers, they find it a convenient way to eliminate a paper trail if legal issues arise in a hiring dispute. Just hit the delete key and that file vaporizes (though it might still be retrievable by a cyber sleuth).

Some employers refuse to accept resumes and cover letters via U.S. mail (a contributing factor to the postal service’s financial woes). Instead, applicants are urged to submit online profiles with the appropriate documents to the e-mail of a specific person – human resources director, recruiter, etc.

Those seeking work always are encouraged by job boards and services to address their cover letters to a person, not a generic “Dear Sir” or “Dear Madam.” If you follow that advice, you would expect and hope for fair consideration of your application. Unfortunately, this is the response you might see months later:

Dear applicant:

Thank you for your recent expression of interest in the position of Director of Impersonal Communications.

Although your credentials are impressive, we regret to inform you that you were not selected to interview for this position. The decision was made to pursue candidates whose background and experience more closely match the position requirements.

You may wish to periodically check our website in order to keep apprised of other positions which we are actively recruiting.

Thank you for your interest.

The e-mailed rejection above is real, nearly word for word, except for the bogus job title. Sadly, this is pretty typical of the new type of form response letters employers are using (if they respond at all). “Dear applicant” and no name or signature of any kind at the bottom. Would any serious job seeker apply for a position that way?

Yes, employers today will defend the practice by saying they have been too overwhelmed by a flood of applicants because of the Great Recession.

It’s not unusual for three open positions, say at a college or university PR office, to draw 350 applicants whose credentials are likely to vary from “absolutely ideal” to “you’ve got to be kidding.” That’s a ton of processing for employers, especially companies which have downsized and have fewer staffers doing the same or more work.

But, even with that changed reality, how can “Dear applicant” be acceptable when it takes just a minute more to address an electronic response to Mr. Doe, Mrs. Doe or Ms. Doe – if your hiring personnel bothered to look at the application package? What happened to a more personalized and professional greeting?

Perhaps the “applicant” waited several months to get a form response that turned out to be a rejection. What PR message does it send? Maybe the wrong message: If this company, institution of higher education, or business, cares so little about interaction with strangers seeking employment, how would it be if I worked for them? Would I ever apply there again? Why waste my time?

Electronic communication can be a wonderful experience. In the case of Facebook, for example, it can bring together long-lost relatives who live thousands of miles apart, reunite old high school friends, allow you to stay in touch with former co-workers, develop new friendships based on shared interests, connect with job leads, etc.

But on the flip side of advances in technology, electronic walls allow us to brush aside the finer communication skills, ones that require human interaction in a more meaningful way. You can't read body language and gestures in an e-mail or text message. Video, even when streamed live, still has an artificial quality.

With remote access dominating communication, you get a society whose children are disconnected with parents and the real world because they’re lost in virtual world. For instance, they don’t play sports outdoors because it’s easier to play indoors with the gadgets (and perhaps bully other kids online, a growing trend).

I’m not saying we should go backward and reject technology – personal computers, laptops, cell phones, iPad, iPod and the rest. They represent progress in the Information Age, and we can anticipate more innovations on the horizon.

But in our haste to embrace all things technology, let’s not forget about little touches that enrich our lives – at home, in the office and at school. It begins with simply addressing someone by name, even if the news is not good.

As for me, I practice what I preach at writenowworks.com.

Fake Electronics Take Tech Toll

There is a growing worldwide epidemic of counterfeit microchips, routers, and computers costing the electronics industry billions of dollars annually, and the problem has serious implications not only for business but for national defense and homeland security, analysts say.

The number of bogus electronic products has more than doubled, from 3,868 in 2005 to 9,356 in 2008, according to the U.S. Commerce Department. Counterfeit electronic parts cost the information technology industry about $100 billion a year, according to the not-for-profit National Electronics Distribution Association.

Typically, counterfeit electronic parts are less reliable than original design ones and may not work. Fake parts can highly compromise originally designed applications such as those involved with data storage, computer operations, and automotive functions.

A Saudi Arabian citizen was convicted earlier this year of purchasing and selling counterfeit Cisco components intended for use by the Marine Corps. These parts were intended for monitoring troop mobility in Iraq, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

“Counterfeiting is a very serious issue that impacts the entire high-tech industry on a global level, ’’ a Cisco public relations spokesperson said. “Cisco and other leading IT companies have been actively addressing this issue for several years now.”

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, recently raised the subject at a briefing attended by reporters from around the globe. Clearly, with the threat of increased terror activity globally, authenticity and integrity of electronic parts are growing concerns at all levels, Chertoff said.

Well-known brands hit hard by counterfeiting in recent years include OEM companies such as Intel, Advanced Micro Devices, NEC, Hewlett Packard, Xerox, and IBM. It’s so bad that distributors worldwide must now examine every part they receive. One distributor, PCX, headquartered in Huntington Beach, Calif., takes the defensive position that “a part is considered suspect until we prove otherwise.”

China is where the bulk of counterfeit electronic parts originate. The economic giant supplies many of these parts to the United States, according to a recent report by the Commerce Department. In many instances, parts are “recycled” from electronic waste sent to China as scrap.

It works this way: Workers dismantle mother boards, recover components, and remove part numbers and other corporate identification. Then the workers imprint forged dates, brand names, and other bogus product codes. These parts then make their way to electronic marketplaces and other brokers before being distributed globally by “knock-off” suppliers.

Besides China, other places responsible for this illegal practice include Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and Eastern European countries, U.S. officials say.

Knock-off components even may be infiltrating traditional distribution channels. Within lots, parts may be “contaminated” with counterfeit components, all from the same authorized dealer. Ultimately, dealers must provide refunds in an effort to salvage their image and brand.

Many of the bogus parts are of such high quality that it is becoming increasingly difficult to ascertain “original” from “counterfeit.” To take it a step further, some dealers are affixing “anti-counterfeit” labels to verify authenticity. In order to stem the flow of these illegal components, potential victims are banding together.

The Defense Department and National Aeronautics and Space Administration are creating standards that help users avoid buying counterfeit parts, according to the Independent Distributors of Electronics Association, a nonprofit trade organization which teaches members how to detect bogus products. Many times when distributors have been known to sell fake parts they are blacklisted.

The process of detecting counterfeit parts is increasingly difficult since hardware is getting more complex. Many of these parts require a microscope to determine their authenticity. Under a microscope, examiners determine the placement of the logo, the quality of the vacuum seal, and the depth of the etchings to help identify potential fraud.

The counterfeiting game also is moving to a higher level, with some culprits saving shavings and material coatings from original parts to make it even more challenging for suppliers to detect differences.

Even so, turnabout is fair play. Some suppliers de-pot or de-encapsulate ICs, processors, and memory chips to inspect the interior die for markings and dates. Other suppliers are even X-raying their incoming parts to determine authenticity.

Chipmakers, like Intel, have developed software to help customers identify the processor inside a computer to make sure that it’s performing up to OEM standards.

Experts in the electronics industry warn that supply chains are becoming more global and less transparent. No one can be sure which parts are going into which computers. These computers can affect everything from national security, to air traffic control towers, and weapons systems.

This post is courtesy of TechMan who tracks trends and issues in business, industry and technology.