Sure, pure research is needed, I think everybody would agree with that statement...but how much of the pure research gets funded through taxpayers money is a real issue. And how do we select what is worth funding or what is not. Hopefully neither @pixeies or @lionlair are not suggesting that every scientist researches whatever he/she feels like it? (I end up paying for it)...Kris
Pure research is needed to create new abilities. When research is dependent upon the final product - then much of what we know would have never been discovered. When forced under product needs, only products along that line are developed or nothing at all since the concept never sees the light of day.
Now I understand why in so many sic-fi movies the computers were made of crystals (Superman and Star Gate, for examples.)
Joking aside, quantum entanglement hold so much more potential than just encrypt communications. It is a pity to see physicists have to justify their research with a practical applications.
Think about it this simple way: if you have some bits of your key entangled with the data you need secured, then the hacker with the different key will just get a different (meaningless) data without being able to tell that
I could not understand how this new quantum memory technology will make the future networks SECURE. Most of the other technologies the hackers will go one step ahead to break the security of even these networks. Can somebody enlighten me on this?
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.