[citation][nom]sacre[/nom]Take everything with a grain of salt. Nearly every year for the past 15 years i've been seeing articles come out about "3d transistors" and "liquid CPU's" and "laser cpus" and "aids almost cured?" "Cancer cure around corner" "this" "that" "this"I'm sure its all adding up to something, but 3/4 of these are incomplete studies and 3/4 of them end in failure.Just like this, we won't hear about it again for another 5-10 years.[/citation]
-3D transistors are coming, but not until we hit an end to the current trend of die shrinks, so it will be a few years.
-Never heard of liquid CPUs, but laser/light based switching CPUs are doing well in development. The issue though seems to be that while it can be done, our current track of technology offers better returns on investment, and is the easier tech to continue Moore's Law, so we may never get to see it.
-The problem with the 'cure for cancer' seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what cancer is. Cancer is always in our bodies. I have cancer, you have cancer, we all have cancer, it is the very root of evolution. But the thing is that most cancers are not self-sustaining so the cells simply die off, or our bodies have mechanisms to find the mistakes, and remove them before they get out of hand. It is in these stages of preventive medicine that we need to focus our research. Then for those who have cancer we simply need to find a better form of removal. Half killing someone to kill a cancer, or hacking someone to pieces are so dark-age, and scary, and simply ineffective. Focus more on prevention and harboring an environment that is not as conducive to promoting cancerous growth, and then find finer tools for removal so that we can get away from chemo treatments. We will never find the 'silver bullet' against cancer because there isn't one. Each type of cancer is different, and each person's cancer is to some extent unique. Until we can have intelligent nonobots that can watch our DNA, there will not be a cure in the way that everyone is hoping for.
-Aids sucks, but they really are pretty close to at least an inoculation for HIV. It does not help those who already have Aids, but it will help the next generation.
As for the actual article, it made my head spin a bit. The way it is described in the article I am unsure if they are talking about an actual form of magnetism, or that they found a material that behaves oddly around magnetism. Either way, it sounds really neat. If there is a way to get something to behave predictably to electricity or magnetism and can be scaled down to extremely small sizes, then there is a place for it in the field of computers.