Fair enough. I guess in my opinion it's better to either get into a bit more accuracy and details or give more of an over-view explanation.
I think physorg tries to keep its articles within a certain word range generally, which allows it to be good for a quick reading, and keeps it from becoming an interminable dissertation.It just reprints the university news. You're barking at the wrong tree - you should write a letter to MIT Media Relations staff, who is responsible for superficial reporting about MIT research.
..are getting rated so low because your comment is convoluted and unnecessarily complicatedI'm downvoted usually with lite account only, who is 1) dedicated voting troll and w2) who labels the posts mindlessly at personal, not factual basis. I just don't like logical steps in reasoning. So if you write "increasing clock speed in chips creates too much signal noise", 1) you're getting out of carrier mobility context of this article 2) you don't explain the actual nature of problem.
neutrino64
Jan 2, 2013This seems quite an inaccurate headline. Or at least misleading.
Actually this article generally seems to have a really poor way of explaining transistors. Also leaving out of a lot of pertinent detail. Or is it just me?