Print 52 comment(s) - last by callmeroy.. on Jun 23 at 1:12 PM

MIT's new RF antenna assembly, uses a signal processing chip inspired by the human ear to create a signal processor more powerful than any existing models, which runs at 1/100th of the power.  (Source: MIT)
New antenna is ultra wide-band while using 1/100th of the power of a standard antenna

Even the best manmade designs are often outclassed by nature's own creations.  This is the case with a new signal processing chip from MIT which promises to dramatically improve RF reception.

The new processor is inspired by parts of the biological cochlea -- an integral component of the human ear.  In the human ear the cochlea uses fluid mechanics, piezoelectrics and neural signal processing to convert sound waves into electrical signals which are transferred to the brain, yielding sounds.  

Rahul Sarpeshkar, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his graduate student, Soumyajit Mandal, were awed at the ear's design as they examined it.  States Professor Sarpeshkar, "The more I started to look at the ear, the more I realized it's like a super radio with 3,500 parallel channels."

Inspired by the design, the MIT researchers created a "RF Cochlea" chip which acts as an analog spectrum analyzer.  Using an attached antenna the chip mimics the neural signal processing of the cochlea to improve its reception, making a standard antenna super.  

The results are extremely impressive.  Faster than any RF spectrum analyzer, the device is ultra-wide band and can receive signals on and differentiate between a broad range of frequencies, like the human ear.  It also consumes 100 times less power than current state-of-the-art models.

Describes Professor Sarpeshkar, "The work provides an analysis of why cochlear spectrum analysis is faster than any known spectrum-analysis algorithm. Thus, it sheds light on the mechanism of hearing as well."

Professor Sarpeshkar's research group at the MIT's Research Laboratory of Electronics has been mastering the art of emulating the human body for some time now.  They previously developed an analog speech-synthesis chip based on the human vocal tract, which they hope to apply to speech recognition and voice identification.

The new discovery easily outdoes that one, though, as the new chip could make for a very low power "all in one" antenna.  The device could be used to pick up cellular phone, wireless Internet, FM, and TV signals in devices like laptops or smartphones.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This article is FAIL
By namechamps on 6/18/2009 10:20:54 AM , Rating: 4
Antennas don't use power.

Antennas (for transmitting) focus signal/power. They are passive devices. The same is true when receiving a signal. Antennas increase the sensitivity and thus increase the received power (more usable signal reaches the device).

To say the antenna "uses" 1000x less power would be like saying "This new road uses 1000x less wheels than existing roads".

Antennas are rated in gain.
The amount of "focusing" an antennas does is gain. But gain isn't magical. Higher gain in one direction comes from reduced gain in another. You can't get something from nothing. You can't have a perfect omni directional antennas for all frequencies and a gain of 20. It simply is not possible.

Take a cellphone for example. An antenna with gain of 0 would send signal in every direction 360 by 360. Well obviously the cellphone tower in not below the ground so that is a waste.

By designing an antenna that sends the majority of the signal only upward you increase the gain in that direction however the gain is reduced in other directions.

I have no doubt this antenna is a good invention (most stuff from MIT is) but the person writing the article didn't even take physics.

RE: This article is FAIL
By Whedonic on 6/18/2009 10:26:23 AM , Rating: 3
I believe that the power mentioned in the article is a measure of how much energy equivalent antenna and processing require to operate. It's not a huge logical leap to see that this article is just saying that this type of antenna will be more power efficient.

RE: This article is FAIL
By JasonMick on 6/18/2009 11:09:39 AM , Rating: 2
Inspired by the design, the MIT researchers created a "RF Cochlea" chip which acts as an analog spectrum analyzer. Using an attached antenna the chip mimics the neural signal processing of the cochlea to improve its reception.

The results are extremely impressive. Faster than any RF spectrum analyzer, the device is ultra-wide band and can receive signals on and differentiate between a broad range of frequencies, like the human ear. It also consumes 100 times less power than current state-of-the-art models.

The original op should perhaps think before blinding hurling insults. Obviously antennas don't consume power, but I think it should be equally obvious that signal processing chips do. Anyone who's taken basic physics would know that electric circuits consume power. While informative, the discussion about gain is entirely off topic.

I clearly stated that the key invention here was the chip. If you selectively insert words into the article I suppose you could come to incorrect conclusions, but I think it should have been pretty straightforward.

RE: This article is FAIL
By rtrski on 6/18/2009 12:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Clearly stated" everywhere but the title and the boldfaced abstract, both of which claim superpowers for the antenna. Oh, and the external link also uses 'antenna' not 'chip'.

Sorry to say, your ignorance of RF engineering terms is exceedingly visible in this article. The improvement is one of signal processing sensitivity over bandwidth compared to power consumption - none of which has anything to do with the rather plain LPDI (log periodic dipole array) antenna shown in the image.

Fail indeed. The OP is perfectly correct. Although market-speak often talks about "amplified antennas" e.g. the ones you can buy for your TV, those are merely a front-end low-noise amp attached to an antenna - since amplifying prior to a lot of line losses is the most significant driver to system noise figure, and thus the maximum possible signal-to-noise ratio - of the entire receive channel path. But the antenna itself merely impedance-matches a transmission line to free space, and offers passive directivity 'gain'. Nothing in the original source material in any way claims uniqueness to the antenna; that's solely in your article.

Shall I continue by 'blinding hurling insults' at your English? Or are you still too well defended to recognize it if I bother?

RE: This article is FAIL
By rtrski on 6/18/2009 12:36:23 PM , Rating: 1
Well I see you changed the LINK text at least. Now you're just thoroughly inconsistent and partially wrong, vs. just plain wrong. Only a title, abstract, and yes, picture caption to go.

RE: This article is FAIL
By AmbroseAthan on 6/18/2009 1:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize all you are arguing about is semantics, right? You both went off about the science of antennas, where giving Jason about 1% leeway on semantics makes it make perfect sense.

Sure, the science lesson you are both providing is cute, but you seem to be angry he used common vernacular instead of more techincal terms. People do commonly refer to an antenna & the signal processing chip package as an "Antenna."

The article is not hard to understand, and it easy to see new portion of the "antenna" that is improved is the RF Chip and that is what gained the power efficiency.

Put down the caffeine, step away from the internet, and watch some Soaps, cause you need to chill out.

RE: This article is FAIL
By JasonMick on 6/18/2009 12:45:39 PM , Rating: 5
And again, I apologize for perhaps not making it clear enough that the chip is what makes this normal antenna super. I by no means was trying to say that the antenna itself was special or new, just the chip, which is based on the human cochlea. I've reworded the piece slightly to better reflect this.

Between you and the original op, though, you seem to have an extremely hostile attitude. Some examples:

Sorry to say, your ignorance of RF engineering terms is exceedingly visible in this article.

Fail indeed.

I have no doubt this antenna is a good invention (most stuff from MIT is) but the person writing the article didn't even take physics.

Believe it or not, I read and respect posters' comments, if you feel something is mistated, just politely raise it to my attention and I'll reword/correct it.

If you somehow have to belittle me to feel better about yourself, I guess I can't stop you -- but its really not productive.

I am ignorant of the finer complexities of RF engineering, certainly -- I make no claims to be an RF engineer, have professional experience in the field or to have taken signal processing at a college level. Yes I've taken basic calculus-based college physics and know the basics of transmission of EM waves (that different signals travel at different frequencies, etc.). But like I said, I'm no expert and not perfect -- sometimes I don't put things as clearly as I might be able to optimally. If I make a minor mistake feel free to correct me if you are an expert in the field. But again, starting a long debate over it is kinda pointless and is really detracting from the important part -- the research, which if you're an RF expert you should value.

RE: This article is FAIL
By rtrski on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: This article is FAIL
By omnicronx on 6/18/2009 3:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
We get it, you are an 'RF expert', he's apologized and rewritten that article, do you want him to post a full retraction too?

I for one knew exactly what he is saying, DT is suppose to be dubbed down after all as not everyone is an 'RF expert'. From his wording, it was pretty clear that he was talking about the RF assembly as a whole. Anyone who is even the slightest bit knowledgeable in the field would probably know this, and for those that do not, do you really think they would have understood if it was as in depth as the original MIT article?

P.S The OP was actually correcting the article and made it pretty clear what information was inaccurate, so what exactly are you adding to the conversion? As all I see is a bunch of complaining. I would also really like to see you write articles on completely different subjects and be correct 100% of the time.

RE: This article is FAIL
By rtrski on 6/19/2009 10:29:26 AM , Rating: 3
Retraction? Nah, just a title and tagline fix would be fine.

Alright, I was more than a little arsehole-ish with the 'fixed one out of three' aside, and I probably shouldn't have stuck with the OP's "failbat" title (the OP whose post you say was so much more valid) or added to it. So I apologize for both.

But really, frankly, the meat of the argument, if not the 'hostile' tone, stands. Read this news on any other tech website, and it's "RF chip" this or that. Only Dailytech titles it, still, as an antenna advance, even though Jason says himself that was not his intent. Of course I understood the article once I read it. But it wasn't the article I thought I'd be reading. And what I 'added' with my initial post was actually making him accept at least some changes...even though the OP's post is now at a 5 rating, Jason's initial response was to blow him off and not make any changes. I simply don't understand how he can change (and correct!) the meat of the article since then and still think that title fits.

Ever consider I post because I actually care that Dailytech gets it right because I like the site? Check out my past post history and you'll see I'm not generally a troll, or argumentative just for its own sake (although I do post the occasional toss-off, useless joke). I know I won't "win" this battle, since the scatological "go back to your pr0n" crowd has already jumped on board. So be it, my post average will take a drubbing. <shrug>

As for writing myself and being correct all the time, I'm sure I wouldn't be. It's true, we give Jason a hard time when he parrots exactly what other sites say vs. trying to put his own flare on it too, perhaps unfairly at times. But I'm equally sure I'd want to correct what was wrong when told by someone in the field though. Or are you implying no one should ever post unless they can prove perfection beforehand? Your arguments are usually more intelligent than that. (I know, that's going to be spun as another insult, isn't it, instead of acknowledging you are usually above such logical traps?)

RE: This article is FAIL
By Alexstarfire on 6/18/2009 5:23:36 PM , Rating: 1
Jesus Christ. I'm all for Mick bashing when he deserves it, but this sure as hell isn't one of those times. Just because you don't like the vernacular that he used doesn't mean you should ride his ass like an English Professor. I believe everyone who read this article knew EXACTLY what he was talking about, even those who don't know a whole lot about antennas like myself.

Jason's article is just fine so STFU if you just don't like the way he worded it.

RE: This article is FAIL
By kenferg1 on 6/18/2009 8:11:24 PM , Rating: 1
Hey, jackoff! Why don't you log back in to your porn account and get back to what makes you happy. I understood exactly what he was writing about. How? Well, damn, I read many tech articles. Believe it or not Mr. Wanker almost all the people who read this column understand basic technical facts.

But, I guess that is not what interests you. You're such a sniveling bore that you sit around looking for things to bitch about. If you want accuracy go read the NY Times Tech section. If you want a heads up on the coolest developments in the techno/science world then come here. I find the articles enlightening, even if I sometimes do not understand them. And guess what? If I don't understand or need more information I Google/Yahoo/Bing/fill-in-the-blank search engine the technology or terms and find out. That's what makes it fun.

So, enjoy your tiny dark apartment filled with pictures of unattainable women, a bong full of resin, and stale McDonalds fries while you wank to the latest free porn whispering to yourself, "She loves me, she loves me, she wants me...." The rest of us will use our intelligence and common sense while enjoying the latest information.


An Intelligent, Sarcastic Being

RE: This article is FAIL
By Nick Williams on 6/19/2009 3:43:35 PM , Rating: 3
Jason I think the way you've handled this commenter is commendable (and I hereby commend you). Where others would likely engage in malicious discourse you've taken the high road despite the disrespect and insults. Good on you.

For the commenter: Surely there was a more respectful, not quite so arrogant, insulting and holier than thou method of delivering your message. Correcting an article is surely permissible and I'm certain both the author and the readers appreciate it, but being intentionally rude about it completely negates what would have otherwise been a positive contribution. Help him improve his work by educating him; not belittling him.

RE: This article is FAIL
By callmeroy on 6/23/2009 1:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
First the article isn't fail. Second, most would jump to the assumption that the intended audience of this website (as a "tech" site) would already be aware that antennas don't consume power.

But, as someone else pointed out the issue is how the article is titled and then the bold faced summary statement at the top of the article.

This is very common pratice at DT --- the sensationist titles that MOST of the time do NOT accurately portray what the article is about. That is 9 out of 10 of the reasons folks on the site will do wise cracks about the writing here and there....that and the proof reading.

I'm not interested in this story one way or another I couldn't care less about this technology, but just pointing out WHY the OP wasn't really wrong -- he was just a ball buster.

RE: This article is FAIL
By hyvonen on 6/18/2009 1:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
Too-important purists took over this discussion... it seems as if they wanted to pat themselves in the back for knowing so much about something that they have studied/worked on/specialized in. Jerks... I want to see you write an article about genetic engineering to Nature or something.

The original article, although not perfectly detailed and scientifically accurate, gives a reasonable idea what was done... to those who are not RF or signal processing engineers. No need to be nitpicking, unless you intent to do the same thing with all the "scientific" articles in Wall Street Journal, NY Times etc.

RE: This article is FAIL
By paydirt on 6/19/2009 3:51:40 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, I don't know shit about antennas and signal processing chips (unlike you), and it was fucking clear to me that the power usage related the the ELECTRONIC COMPUTER CHIP.

Go ahead and keep complaining about the free content you are reading. Including this.... ooOoo

RE: This article is FAIL
By Funksultan on 6/18/2009 10:30:00 AM , Rating: 1
I knew it! All those powered antennas that we've seen over the years were all part of the X-files super-soldier conspiracy...

Thanks for seeing through this for us namechamps. When we crush our unseen oppressors, your name shall be the one we praise.

RE: This article is FAIL
By omnicronx on 6/18/2009 3:18:46 PM , Rating: 3
Really?.. You don't need to be a physics major to know that by 'powered' they mean it includes a built in active amplifier, as the OP stated, the antenna itself is not powered at all.

Amazon also lists 'Digital Antennas' for OTA HDTV which also do not exist, its merely a marketing ploy using the same technique, smack on an amplifier and call it 'digital'.

RE: This article is FAIL
By Nick Williams on 6/19/2009 3:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone knows that the jiggawatts and the whizbangz waddle the quasispectrograph at the optimal gigglehertz so that the thoracic anvil is semantically aligned with the iliac fossa! Cochlea my posterior!

RE: This article is FAIL
By AmbroseAthan on 6/18/2009 10:34:37 AM , Rating: 2
Here is some clarification:

The CHIP uses less power, and the CHIP is better at the signal processing. The antenna itself is still just an antenna, but the antenna + the new "RF Cochlea" = the new super-antenna.

RE: This article is FAIL
By Technomage on 6/18/2009 10:38:09 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly right on all counts.

I think the real problem is that the writer had no idea. The antenna itself appears to be a rather ordinary wide band antenna.

The real gem here is the signal processing approach. Analogously, that is where the magic of the cochlea really takes place anyway. Internally it's like a long, rolled up set of filters which accomplish the equivalent of an FFT in dissecting the complex frequency content translated from the moving air by the mechanical pieces of the ear. It's inherently parallel and broadband.

I love it when we try and mimic nature and find out it has already worked out most of the kinks. The trick will be merging biology and engineering so we can grow our own systems, rather than simulating them with metal, silicon and software.

RE: This article is FAIL
By kb9fcc on 6/18/2009 12:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
Additionally, an original source for the news article was not cited, but another website which had picked up the story first. Why not reference the original MIT article? Or better yet, get hold of the IEEE paper.

The antenna in the picture appears to be a log-periodic design etched out of two-sided copper-clad board. The shadows of the backside traces were throwing me at first, as well as the location of the feed point until I grokked it out.

Yes, a log-periodic is broad-banded, but only between the range of the longest and shortest elements of the antenna. It's hard to tell from the picture, lacking any true scale (OK, I'm too lazy to currently work out the exact size of an element compared to the BNC connectors in the picture), but the antenna (the part that is visible) might have a lower limit of ~500 MHz with the top end in the +2 GHz range.

This is a fascinating bit of technology (the chip, that is), basically, what SETI does on a chip. Where SETI uses thousands on radios to listen the same number of "channels", this could now be done with a single chip. Usually listening to large amounts of data without discrimination is not useful, so some second stage(s) (no matter which application this is used for) would be required.

RE: This article is FAIL
By hyvonen on 6/18/2009 1:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
DT is not a scientific publication; I don't think I've ever seen (or expected to see) a full IEEE-quality citation. Do you think these guys have time or inclination to skim through thousands of IEEE papers? But yeah, a link to the MIT article would've been nice...

Overall, though, this seems like one of those MIT "breakthroughs" that is based on solid engineering, but then wrapped around a marketing gimmick.

RE: This article is FAIL
By knutjb on 6/18/2009 3:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be a moron, the article was talking about an antenna assembly which includes the electronic transducer and they need power. Ok, so it wasn't written technical specialist. An antenna in and of itself is a passive device and useless on it's own, with a few exceptions. Sure it wasn't written by an expert but it did convey enough info for someone who does understand the subject to appriciate the accomplishment.

RE: This article is FAIL
By wifiwolf on 6/18/2009 7:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
Agree with you, this bashing has no point.
I'm a computers engineer and studied signal processing and digital signal processing. I found this article really nice and as informational as a news article could be. How many times on TV you hear those non-technical and inaccurate language. That is all that is. You don't make news for 1% of the public (or less). Those would probably do as I do when I find these articles - just go and find the source of that information on a technical place if it was interesting enough.

RE: This article is FAIL
By Orac4prez on 6/22/2009 11:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
So what is this comment - EPIC Fail. I think the article was clear enough. There's an old saying "None so deaf as those who don't want to hear and none so blind as those who don't want to see!" This is simply a snippet of information and not meant to be a treatise on electronic or electrical engineering. Jason's shorthand description assumes some level of basic competence in technology which I think an be expected on this site. I for one was quite happy with it!

I am glad the fine people at MIT were able to make use of their insight into the workings of the ear to produce a tangible result and not just describe an academic curiosity.

By Breathless on 6/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm..
By xlmussel on 6/18/2009 10:30:53 AM , Rating: 3
Are you trying to advocate intelligent design on DailyTech? Good luck.

RE: Hmm..
By Breathless on 6/18/2009 10:37:41 AM , Rating: 1
ha, I know.

Just stating the obvious

RE: Hmm..
By redbone75 on 6/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm..
By Breathless on 6/18/2009 11:25:11 AM , Rating: 2
You Sir, have impeccable logic.

RE: Hmm..
By Alexstarfire on 6/18/2009 5:25:39 PM , Rating: 1
You sir, just made my day. That was hilarious. LOL. :)

RE: Hmm..
By sld on 6/19/2009 1:24:55 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah. If you can't join them, flame them! ;)

RE: Hmm..
By fic2 on 6/18/2009 12:25:24 PM , Rating: 3
I am wondering why they used the human ear. Dogs certainly hear better than humans. I am sure there are other species that hear better than dogs.

RE: Hmm..
By wallijonn on 6/18/2009 3:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
Professor Sarpeshkar's research group at the MIT's Research Laboratory of Electronics has been mastering the art of emulating the human body for some time now. They previously developed an analog speech-synthesis chip based on the human vocal tract, which they hope to apply to speech recognition and voice identification.

The new discovery easily outdoes that one, though, as the new chip could make for a very low power "all in one" antenna. The device could be used to pick up cellular phone, wireless Internet, FM, and TV signals in devices like laptops or smartphones.


In other words, it can discriminate very low level signals and filter out the the higher level signals which would overwhelm the source signal.

RE: Hmm..
By wifiwolf on 6/18/2009 7:19:36 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Hmm..
By safcman84 on 6/18/2009 10:55:27 AM , Rating: 5
lol. That sentence makes sense, as long as you believe in God. You also have to believe that he designed the ear - which is not necessarily true even if you are religious (i.e. the possibility that God created evolution, and evolution created the ear).

For all the atheists out there:

"Interesting how the best designs often seem to be modeled after what evolution has designed so perfectly after millions of years "


RE: Hmm..
By sld on 6/19/2009 1:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
So is there design, or not?

RE: Hmm..
By acase on 6/18/2009 12:19:47 PM , Rating: 3
Definitely not accusing you, but it still baffles me how intelligent people can still believe this crap! It's like they can use science and logic in everything else in life, and then just shut it off because their mommy wanted to give them some morals by using fear when they were kids.

RE: Hmm..
By hyvonen on 6/18/2009 1:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like (s)he was just trolling, and got the expected (over)reaction.

RE: Hmm..
By drmo on 6/18/2009 3:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well, since religion has been evolving in humans for the past 50,000 years or so, then it should not be surprising that many people believe in some form of it. Sure, it may only be social evolution, but it could be partly biological as well.

By wrekd on 6/18/2009 9:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
I once heard about a server farm that continuously models a system, then changes it a bit (like evolution) and models it again. Over months they come up with new highly evolved designs that they then test in the real world.

It seems cool that some people model machines after nature while others use natural process to evolve machines.

Resistance is futile.

RE: Cool
By AntiM on 6/18/2009 9:42:24 AM , Rating: 3
I was expecting to read about a large dishlike antenna shaped like a human ear, so I'm rather disappointed.

Nature has been designing sound capture and processing devices for billions of years, we're just starting to scratch the surface.

RE: Cool
By cornelius785 on 6/18/2009 10:39:29 AM , Rating: 2
Do you mean genetic algorithms?

I've read about them and they seem to be nothing more than 'elegant brute-force'. I think they have their places, but I don't like the idea of picking random parameters for entities within a population, seeing how well they do according to some criteria, randomly tweaking the parameters (based on some of the better performing entitie and adding in some more randomness -> the 'elegant' part of 'elegant brute-force'), and repeat. When it comes to brute-force approaches, I always wonder if there is a better way.

RE: Cool
By JonB on 6/18/2009 3:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
The distributed computing project I particate in (with many other AnandTech members) uses genetic algorithms to modify and improve the design of "drawing board only" linear accelerators with the goal of more efficient production of muons and neutrinos. Distributed Particle Accelerator Design (DPAD). Someday, the Brits might actually build it!

You are correct that it isn't super efficient, but it has been very effective at improving the theoretical design elements. A bit like putting a million monkeys (not descended from anything) in front of a million keyboards and waiting for a good novel to appear.

RE: Cool
By wifiwolf on 6/18/2009 7:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yes nature way takes very much time but always goes in the right direction, bad ramifications all go down one way or another. The only problem is that it takes too much time. Nature doesn't have problem with time consumed, we do...

Nice approach anyway.

RE: Cool
By sld on 6/19/2009 1:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
Not really, because intelligent humans decide which algorithms go into the mix.

It's not as if some sand particles got together, refined themselves, assembled together to form traces of width 90 nm, got some metal atoms to join them, and then began to run simulations with said algorithms plucked from the moving ether.

Directed, and definitely designed.

By smackababy on 6/18/2009 9:36:29 AM , Rating: 2
HAL doesn't appreciate being turned off...

By KingstonU on 6/18/2009 10:04:41 AM , Rating: 2
...It was ultra-wide band .... and that's when they came. They came from the dead.

Sorry, had to put in a "Pulse" reference.

Efficient Ringing
By InTheEyeOfTheBeholder on 6/19/2009 11:19:11 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, great, an electronic energy efficient constant ear ringing. Would someone answer that damn phone already!

By paydirt on 6/19/2009 3:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
I expect these young fellows are going to get a friendly knock on their door shortly.

I gamed with a dude back around 2000 who created a software algorythm so electronic video or sensors would be able to watch video like the human eye does (focusing on center, paying mind to movement on the periphery). He got a visit too.

By Zingam on 6/18/2009 3:53:12 PM , Rating: 1
It seems to me that the Indians are doing science in the US these days only. What are doing the Americans? Or they are all Lawyers, Doctors, Wall Street brokers and Insurance companies employees? Are Americans producing anything these days but trouble around the world?
It seems to me that the times of Thomas Edison when Americans invented and produced most important things in the world and were at the forefront of technological and industrial revolution are long gone now.
Everybody want's to get millionaire fast by suing people and not producing anything. That's bad! I always had faith in the USA!!! :-\

"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki