Great work. I wonder if the author had heard of the Eyewriter project [1]? Similar system, fully open source, but I'm not sure how active development is nowadays. It's been up since ~2011, though, so quite old by software standards (uses openFrameworks/openCV). Still, it worked impressively well when I built a derivative system.
The accessibility space needs as much open-source development as possible - most of the commercial tech, if you can find it, is locked down and outdated.
That is pretty disappointing to hear - Intel's execution and involvement with the fair has been a great model for all STEM competition. The other major high school research event, the Siemens Competition, seems much less rigorously conducted (they're dropping the finalist talks for teleconference presentations this year) and doesn't capture the same brand recognition that STS does.
Still, since so few students interact with STS compared to, say, ISEF, it may be that Intel is trying to expand its reach by de-emphasizing the elite and looking to support the broadband "maker movement." It is also unlikely that Google, which the article mentions, will pick up the banner - they run their own Google Science Fair (which hasn't yet captured the prestige of STS). We'll see how it goes, but I and many others will miss Intel's STS, the crown jewel of high school competition.
Not really, it suffers from the same issues that most STEM competitions do. The rewards go to the children of successful parents who gave their children important aspects of their own research or self-funded them to develop an existing idea.
The competition still has prestige, but most of the awardees didn't get where they are on their own abilities and interests.
While I agree that perhaps we could use some more diversity in science research competition, I think you underestimate the scale of work and dedication required - look at Sara Volz, the 2013 winner, who notably did much of her work in an improvised lab environment [1].
If you're interested, do take a look at the 2015 projects - Intel STS winners are by no means coddled or fed on "fake" science. Perhaps there is an undesirable concentration of talent in certain schools or regions, leading some to question the privilege enjoyed by the winners, but there is no doubt in my mind that the awardees have performed immensely well to deserve their honors. By the way, some of the best labs/resources are also offered through meritocratic selection - Harvard/MIT's RSI and Stanford's SIMR programs both offer excellent mentorship and cutting-edge resources to summer students through an application process. These students often end up winning these competitions too, with no parent involvement.
However, some manufacturers have been backpedaling on NAND process size recently, since larger cells have better endurance. Capacity still scales well thanks to tech like Triple Level Cells (TLC) and 3D-stacked dies.
Console hardware is always high volume and low margin; MS and Sony usually breakeven on costs or even eat losses at the start of a new console generation. For AMD, it was the volume they needed just to keep orders going to the fab and a cash stream of some sort, but actual profit is slim by nature of that market.
The issue with TSMC/GF "16/14 nm" is that not all important features have been brought down to that level, so the actual shrink is less pronounced than usual. Furthermore, Intel's FinFET's are likely to be more mature than the competition, so I'd be wary of calling the two nodes equivalent. Close, certainly closer than the past, but Intel might retain its lead a bit longer.
Sure, they aren't equivalent, but at least it's closer than 28nm :) Also, while TSMC/GF are fudging the whole "14nm" thing, I would bet Intel is too. Node names are all marketing, and Intel is not above marketing.
nm has been rather misleading for past few generations, Intel is just as guilty as other fabs.
Not everything gets shrunk in modern die shrinks.
What my limited understanding is that transistors might be getting shrunk but wiring connecting transistors is not getting shrunk it is still at some larger number (65nm?)
Intel's ever-widening process advantage makes that unlikely, processor design entirely notwithstanding. Unfortunate, but it's the result of being stuck on 28nm for 4 years and counting now.
Man, even at 20nm, the die size must be a bear. Especially the L3$... I know TSMC has a ~600mm^2 max (for remotely reasonable yields), even on the highly mature 28nm process. Thus, I doubt this would be a viable chip for deployment today, rather a proof of concept. Need more details to be sure though.
It seems that "Veti" just refers to the veterinary application. I've played with similar would healing biomaterials before, and from the (scarce) available materials, it looks like they're using a sodium-alginate based polymer, which can be chemically crosslinked with calcium ions. With some additional clotting factors and tissue sealing agents (tranglutaminase comes to mind), rapid wound closure looks pretty feasible.
The accessibility space needs as much open-source development as possible - most of the commercial tech, if you can find it, is locked down and outdated.
[1]: http://www.instructables.com/id/The-EyeWriter-20/