Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GE Announces OLED Manufacturing Breakthrough

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the cheap-and-bright dept.

Displays 192

bughunter writes "Today GE announced the successful demonstration of the world's first roll-to-roll manufactured organic light-emitting diode (OLED) lighting devices (press release). This demonstration is a key step toward making OLEDs and other high-performance organic electronics products at dramatically lower costs than what is possible today. The green crowd is thrilled as well. Personally, as the parent of a 3-year-old technophile, I'm dreading the animated cereal boxes." Now can I get my Optimus Keyboard for less than $1,299?

cancel ×

192 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What Was the Cost? (2, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721406)

Now can I get my Optimus Keyboard for less than $1,299?
Well, I didn't see a price. I saw that it was 'green' as it was making organic LEDs but how was it any greener than the old procedure for making OLEDs? Nor did they state it was faster or cheaper. They said it took four years to do this, how long did it take to make the strip pictured? What raw materials went into that (or what were the costs for that strip)?

I would be excited ... if there were more details convincing me this is a 'breakthrough.' That word gets thrown around a lot these days.

Re:What Was the Cost? (4, Informative)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721456)

From the release:

The demonstration of a low-cost, roll-to-roll process for OLED lighting represents the successful completion of a four-year, $13 million research collaboration among GE Global Research, Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. (NASDAQ:ENER) and the U.S. Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The goal of the collaboration was to demonstrate a cost-effective system for the mass production of organic electronics products such as flexible electronic paper displays, portable TV screens the size of posters, solar powered cells and high-efficiency lighting devices. ECD Senior Vice President Nancy Bacon said, "This program was a major step in developing high volume roll-to-roll manufacturing for OLEDs and other organic semiconductor devices. The success of this program is testimony to the effectiveness of NIST's advanced technology program model, and our 20-year history of pioneering research in roll-to-roll technology. We currently are utilizing this technology to mass produce our flexible, durable and lightweight UNI-SOLAR brand solar laminates. ECD looks forward to continuing collaboration with GE to further develop this technology for future commercialization."
The success is in the creation of a manufacturing process, the strip was the demonstration of its success.

Re:What Was the Cost? (4, Informative)

EaglemanBSA (950534) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722460)

Exactly. In mechanical engineering terms, this is what we call the beta prototype - the prototype created with the real-world manufacturing process described in the manufacturing plan. The expensive one-of-a kind stuff is an alpha (like concept cars, etc.), which are usually hand-made. I would expect they'll have these mass produced quite soon, and at an affordable price for many applications.

Remember, if their plan didn't show expectations of profit (i.e.: a sellable product), they wouldn't be researching it. They're a company, they're out to make money. Luckily, in this case, they're trying to do it by developing a responsible technology.

Reason to be excited (5, Insightful)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721566)

I would be excited ... if there were more details convincing me this is a 'breakthrough.'
The one thing that I think sets this apart from most "breakthroughs" is that they're demonstrating a prototype of an actual fabrication process rather than a prototype of a product that would then require plenty more research to figure out how to fabricate it.

In other words, it's one thing to demonstrate a prototype product, but an entirely other thing to demonstrate how you actually plan to mass produce that product, which this is!

Of course, it's yet another thing to actually produce your production equipment and drive adoption among manufacturers, but this announement is still one major step beyond most next-gen display announcements (SED, I'm looking at you...).

Re:Reason to be excited (-1, Troll)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721844)

You know what's even more impressive? When I damn well got one! Now get the fuck back in that kitchen and make me some OLEDs bitch!

Re:What Was the Cost? (1)

lixee (863589) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721590)

It's not a breakthrough per se, but it's something that makes me very excited. Roll-to-roll fabrication is something that will assuredly make production both cheaper and faster. I can already picture my new wallpapers...

Re:What Was the Cost? (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721596)

I would be excited ... if there were more details convincing me this is a 'breakthrough.' That word gets thrown around a lot these days.

If the announcement came out of some startup, it would be questionable, but it came from General Electric Research in Schenectady, NY. That's an organization over a century old, and a big chunk of the electrical industry was invented there. If they say they have a production process for making something in quantity, they probably do.

Re:What Was the Cost? (4, Insightful)

Linux_ho (205887) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722520)

If they say they have a production process for making something in quantity, they probably do.

The OP wasn't arguing that GE doesn't have the production process. He/she just wasn't convinced that the process was "a breakthrough." The photo I saw looked like the LEDs were about 1 inch square each, and the attached article suggested that they were about twice as efficient per lumen as incandescent lighting. The efficiency of incandescent lighting isn't exactly hard to beat.

Would you consider a new process for manufacturing buggy whips to be a "breakthrough?" I'm not saying it's NOT a breakthrough, (obviously this could lead to amazing display technology) but I agree with the point the OP was trying to make: it would be nice to have more details.

Organic != 'Green' (4, Informative)

RingDev (879105) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721642)

Organic, before the marketing hype took over it, means 'carbon based'. That is not to say that any pesticides or insecticides were not used in the production of this OLED. But the Organic in OLED means that the base of the LED is a polymer with a carbon based composite deposited on it. The purpose 4-year project appears to have been to find a significantly more efficient (roll to roll) way of printing the organic compound to the polymer. So while the creation of the tool took four years, it could mean the ability to greatly increase production and reduce costs significantly.

What makes OLED's 'green' is that they don't require back lighting like LCD displays. Which means you can generate images for a fraction of the electrical draw.

-Rick

Re:Organic != 'Green' (5, Funny)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721706)

Yep my favorite was when I saw Organic Sea Salt....
Right up there when the Video store had Apollo 13 in the SciFi section.

Re:Organic != 'Green' (5, Funny)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721890)

While I'm probably more of a tree-hugger than most Slashdotters, I'm occasionally tempted to start marketing Organic Hemlock Tea ... "The first tea that's guaranteed to reduce your impact on the environment!"

Re:Organic != 'Green' (1)

wompere (1070160) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722196)

Unless you chase it with a large dose of caffeine.

Re:Organic != 'Green' (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722200)

I'd be tempted to buy several cases and distribute it to certain people...

Re:Organic != 'Green' (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722208)

Yes the nastiest stuff on the planet is organic. Cobra venom, nerve gas, and your average Slashdot poster.

Re:Organic != 'Green' (1)

Compuser (14899) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723202)

Hemlock tea exists and is OK for you so long is it is made from the tree and from the ground plant (that's the version that killed Socrates).

Re:Organic != 'Green' (3, Informative)

Compuser (14899) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723344)

Uh, hate replying to myself but that was supposed to be:
Hemlock tea exists and is OK for you so long it is made from the tree and NOT from the ground plant (that's the version that killed Socrates).

A quick google search turns up a company named TerraVita which sells its hemlock tea for $14 per 25 bags box. So the GP already has competitors.

Apollo 13 (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722448)

To be fair, Apollo 13 was not a documentary, it was a drama based on actual events... in other words, fiction. Since it was fiction, and based on science, the film actually is science fiction.

Re:Apollo 13 (0)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723034)

By that logic then Midway, The Charles Lindberg Story, or any fiction that has some technology in it should be classified as science fiction. It is at worst a historical dramatization, at worst historical fiction.

In 1990 the Apollo moon landings where no more science fiction than Lindberg's flight was in the 1950s

Re:Organic != 'Green' (2, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721712)

I think greenies are excited because OLEDs could replace some forms of more traditional, less efficient lighting if their cost could be brought down, which is what this process promises. I don't think the "organic" part has much to do with it, though along with being more efficient it also contains no mercury.

Re:Organic != 'Green' (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722394)

Yeah, the first line of the article linked as "The green crowd is thrilled [groovygreen.com] " is:

Energy for lighting is one of the main resource hogs around the world.


So yeah, you were right, and a lot of others just hopped on the "silly greenies" bandwagon.

OLED = 'Green' (3, Informative)

overshoot (39700) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721976)

What makes OLED's 'green' is that they don't require back lighting like LCD displays. Which means you can generate images for a fraction of the electrical draw.
Well, that and they're pretty danged efficient light emitters. As in, finally, efficient and long-lasting solid-state room lighting.

THAT is going to save more than a few barrels of oil. After all, even /. posters burn more power on lighting than on backlighting, monitor tans notwithstanding.

Say that again? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722276)

...on lighting than on backlighting, monitor tans notwithstanding.

Hey, tongue-twisters are forbidden here!

Re:Organic != 'Green' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22722436)

If OLED can replace the "mid-day light at midnight" Las Vegas strip or Times Square assault on your senses, then it'll be "Green Friendly" But when discussing animated packaging as a step up from conventional "still image" boxes, you're talking about zero active electrical draw to something, which is most definitely not green.

GE is up nearly 5% (2, Informative)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721470)

I wish I was a stock holder again. Those dividends were nice too. I hope they blow Sony out of the water with OLED stuff.

Re:GE is up nearly 5% (1)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721502)

The market is having a nice rally all around today, but I don't know that OLEDs have anything to do with GE specifically. Stock traders are notorious for following the crowd. I'm still down ~10% for the year.

Not that it matters right now - I can't touch my retirement for 32 1/2 years anyways.

Re:GE is up nearly 5% (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722358)

True, but as far as stocks go, GE is (over time) a pretty solid stock. And as the GPP said, the dividends are nice.

Plus they were smart enough to get rid of their financing arm a few years back.

Re:GE is up nearly 5% (1)

tcolberg (998885) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723248)

Back in 2005, I bought a few shares of GE and an equally small amount of Citibank. I was a little disappointed that GE's stock was staying rather flat over the next couple years while Citi was doing very well. I stuck with the GE because I intent to hold for the long term and the dividends were nice. Nowadays I don't complain about my GE stock's stable price; I took my head out of the game because of my graduation last summer and didn't sell the Citi when I should have. ::welcomes schadenfreude::

OT-sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723166)

Stocks, as they are currently sold and traded, etc, are *not* an example of true wealth being represented by "just weights and measures". And you are down for the year. Whereas, land, gold, wheat, cattle, honey, milk, etc, are examples of true wealth and can actually be quantified by "just weights and measures" and why I am up considerably this year so far (because that is what I invest in, as fast as I get my hands on fed reserve bingo bux-any extra after paying caesars ludicrous "bills"- I convert them to true wealth assets following the "laws" you refer to. It "just works"). If you *really* follow the fiscal laws you can't go wrong. Farting around with the wall street casino congame is pure gambling, it is not investing, it certainly isn't following any biblical laws, although stock investing was closer a couple-few hundred years ago, at least it had the potential, but those times are long gone now. No, it isn't anything of the sort, any more than buying lottery tickets are investing, especially when you are always going to be up against the huge trading houses that have insider "ins" with the central banks (who are additional examples of false and criminality based wealth, no fiat currency is an example of a "just weight or measure", they are criminals in deed and in fact, they bear false witness, engage in theft by diversion and coercion, they sell "avarice" as their primary product, etc).

Good luck, think about it for awhile before rejecting what I said offhand, just go look at my examples for just the past year, see if I am right (I am, but look anyway)

With that said, I own some Unisolar solar panels, they are the best made, and having them in hand and using them to help offset or replace your Caesar's currency based electric bill is a good "investment" if you want electricity for your next 32.5 years at a rate you can lock in today.

If you invest in true wealth, you get ahead always, if you invest in paper or electronic representations or promises of wealth, it is pure gambling, with the outcome coming from basically a class of folks who are conmen more than anything else, so you might make some-as some people do obviously- or you might lose most or all it-what usually happens to most people. The conmen run a generation long con, then lather rinse and repeat it, and have been doing the same con for a long time now.

Ok, so how about this idea... (3, Insightful)

keineobachtubersie (1244154) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721472)

"Personally, as the parent of a 3-year-old technophile, I'm dreading the animated cereal boxes

Ok, then don't buy them.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (1)

entmike (469980) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721538)

And never set foot in a grocery store again, by that logic.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721602)

Don't bother with GP. He's a pedantic idiot who's more interested in being correct than fostering and continuing interesting discussions, which means he's either a troll or severely developmentally disabled. Avoid at all costs.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721754)

"Don't bother with GP. He proved me wrong in public, which means I'm afraid to log in and engage him in conversation because I looked like a fucking idiot the last time I tried. Avoid at all costs, or you'll get crushed like I did."

FYP.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721802)

Well, glad to see you're being the Better Man about the whole situation... /sarcasm

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721938)

"Well, glad to see you're being the Better Man about the whole situation... /stupidity"

Well, compared to a steaming pile like that, it's impossible not to be.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22722004)

Are you always this easy to troll, or is it just that special time of the month and you've found yourself fresh out of Kotex?

Either way, thanks for the lulz.

No lube for you either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22722642)

"Are you always this easy to troll"

Wait, wait wait, you posted AC in a vain attempt at gaining back some shred of dignity after having your intellect questioned as a result of getting crushed, and then you think YOU'RE the one trolling?

Think about how seriously you are to even bother posting.

You wouldn't be here if you didn't have some desire to get over, and you don't do that for people you like or people you don't give a fuck about. God, stupid is usually just a silly epithet, but you really must be a fucking moron.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22722492)

What function of shopping in a grocery store requires you to a) bring your kid b) give them what they want and c) allow them to act out?

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721562)

In a few years the world could look like a Disneyland Electrical Parade all the time, and I don't mean that in a good way. On the other hand, if gang members start wearing luminous gang signs, they'll be a self-curing problem.

What a world it'll be when people grow accustomed to flashing lights on everything, and if you have none you'll be boring or invisible. Ray Bradbury, we need you. Write a story.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721700)

Just like the Nike's, with the LED that flashed every time you step.

'Ya know what you call guys with those shoes in our Neighborhood?

Target!' --Comic Unknown.

"On the other hand, if gang members start wearing luminous gang signs, they'll be a self-curing problem."

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (1, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721722)

Speaks the guy with no kids.

It's not buying them that's the problem, its having to navigate through a grocery store where all the things you don't want your kid to eat are marketing themselves aggressively right from the shelves...The kid will want them, the marketers will make sure of that, and you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue.

Sure, you can fight that fight, but you have to fight it often enough already for crap that actually matters more than a box of cereal. Lot of people will give in just to avoid the inevitable scene.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (5, Funny)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721776)

<i>you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue.</i>

That's why my wife won't let me in the cereal isle, and I'm an adult.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721792)

"Speaks the guy with no kids."

That must be you because it sure isn't me, funny how someone who thinks jumping to conclusions about shit he doesn't know is a good idea, then goes on to elaborate on why he's a shitty parent.

"Lot of people will give in just to avoid the inevitable scene."

YOU might. I'm a good parent, so I can see how we'd do things differently...

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (3, Interesting)

itof500 (239202) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721800)

I found that not having a television in the house remarkably reduced this sort of activity. And then, once they are old enough, I used to give them 'missions'. The missions were - go and get me a box of x, and they got a point for each completion. When they accumulated 5 pts, I'd buy them a treat they wanted at the checkout counter. When they got into grade school I'd give them the calculator and have them find the least expensive of X. It made grocery shopping something of a fun game for us.

duke out

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22722918)

mod parent up.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722002)

"..have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue."
consistency is key.
My kids don't whine and scream when we ahve said no to something consistently. They few things where we broke consistently still haunt us... sigh. Live and learn.
Even then they learn, it's just a longer process.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (2, Insightful)

keineobachtubersie (1244154) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722008)

"and you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue."

I see, you prefer to pay them off instead of parenting them. And we wonder where all the consumerism comes from...

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22722320)

From the parent comment "Speaks the guy with no kids."

I see, you prefer to comment without reading or thinking first. And we wonder where all the ignorance comes from...

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (1)

keineobachtubersie (1244154) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722530)

"From the parent comment "Speaks the guy with no kids. I see, you prefer to comment without reading or thinking first."

Oh, how funny. He was talking to me, he was wrong, but that was addressed to me. Perhaps you could take your own advice...

"And we wonder where all the ignorance comes from..."

Not after your last post I don't.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722220)

The kid will want them, the marketers will make sure of that, and you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue.

That's the part where you take the kid home and dinner sucks because it's whatever you have in the house.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (4, Informative)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722398)

> Speaks the guy with no kids.
> ... you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue...
> you can fight that fight, but you have to fight it often enough already for crap that actually matters more than a box of cereal. Lot of people will give in just to avoid the inevitable scene.

No, you just have to fight it a couple of times, be consistent, and don't give in occasionally. My three kids, all under 6 years old, never whine and scream for stuff because they know it is not a strategy that will ever work. We say no to junk. If they whine and scream we say no to everything. We never make exceptions. People cannot believe how "well behaved" our kids are. We cannot believe how badly behaved most other kids are.

Remember, partial reinforcement is more powerful than continuous reinforcement, so giving in once in a while will guarantee maximum screaming and whining.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (3, Insightful)

RevDigger (4288) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723116)

Personally, as the parent of a 4-year-old...

Reward the behavior you like, and punish the behavior you don't like. Never deviate from this, ever. Behavior that is rewarded will be repeated, and behavior that is punished will (eventually!) cease. I mean, I know exactly where you are coming from. I know how much tantrums at the store suck. You may have to sit through a few of them before it works. If it's bad enough, just exit the store and deposit the kid with someone else, while you shop solo. Trade sleep for time to shop if you have to, but never reward bad behavior. YOU are in charge.

Also, I suspect a lot of the gimme gimme tantrums are tv-related. It sucks to think you paid someone (TV purchase, cable subscription) to induce tantrums in your kid. Maybe turn that crap off too.

Mmm, slashdot parenting. This crowd is getting old.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (5, Funny)

Spokehedz (599285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722032)

You obviously haven't gotten out of your parents basement, so we know you haven't gotten laid. Therefore, we know you don't have any kids. As such, you have no idea what its like to be at your wits end in the grocery store with your children.

Let me put it in terms that you would understand.

Imagine that you've stayed up for 4 months straight coding some program--but every time it starts to work, it changes and you have to change your code all over again. Then imagine that every time you tried to sleep, your compile failed and you have to sit up all night making sure that it compiles okay. All the while you are running all over the basement to make sure that none of your other compilers are failing either, and lifting them up and down to change out their power supplies.

Got that? Okay. Good. Now imagine that you just want to go to Microcenter to pick up some more Bawls but your laptop is SCREAMING at the top of it's 2" speakers that it wants Serial-ATA. You know that it doesn't use Serial-ATA, but it is just making all kinds of noise, and shaking. Then other people start to look at you and your laptop making such a cacophony, and your bloodshot eyes just roam over them like they are zombies and you are three seconds away from killing everybody within a 50' radius of you.

Oh, and this happens every single time you go to the store. Like clockwork.

You will cave in. You don't know you will, but trust me--and every other parent out there--you will cave, and buy it whatever it wants to just shut it up.

So Yeah. There is no 'Just don't buy it' crap with kids. Someday, if you ever get out of your parents basement, you will know that.

You have my sympathy (2)

overshoot (39700) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722110)

You obviously haven't gotten out of your parents basement, so we know you haven't gotten laid. Therefore, we know you don't have any kids. As such, you have no idea what its like to be at your wits end in the grocery store with your children.
Well, if you say so. Although I'm pretty sure that the two grad students and the junior engineer are all mine. That includes twins.

And, in the face of assurances similar to yours, I managed to avoid buying the crap when we went shopping. Despite ADHD. Twins.

Not that this says anything good about me as a parent -- I suspect it's more "when you got luck, shit'll do for brains."

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722252)

"So Yeah. There is no 'Just don't buy it' crap with kids."

Exactly. That's why I went with the 'Don't Ever Have Kids' thing. Lots of extra money, big shortage of headaches.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (4, Insightful)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722254)

Oh, and this happens every single time you go to the store. Like clockwork.

Simple solution - don't take your kids out if he's being a shit.

You will cave in. You don't know you will, but trust me--and every other parent out there--you will cave, and buy it whatever it wants to just shut it up.

No, I will punish the behavior.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (2, Informative)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722854)

Simple solution - don't take your kids out if he's being a shit.
So, you leave your kids at home just like your computer. Have you got any idea what a 2 year old can do to your home while you're away? Add the legal aspect of child endangerment, and leaving your kids at home while shopping is usually NOT an option. Unless you still haven't moved out of the basement and can pawn off the little sunshines on your mom upstairs.
No, I will punish the behavior
Oh, and I don't suggest punishing your kid in a store nowadays, nine times out of ten some do-gooder will call CPS on you. And punishing later doesn't work until they are past the age of screaming fits anyway.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723206)

Well, I haven't really had a problem with my daughter's behaviour when out shopping (she's four and a half now), they may have been a few occasions but not many. Then again, I don't give in to my daughter's every demand so she doesn't expect to get everything she asks for and consequently doesn't have a tantrum when she doesn't get it. Also hitting a child, and I assume that is the sort of punishment you use because why else would a do-gooder want to call the CPS when you punish your child, is not the only way to punish a child.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (5, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722314)

Amazing. I never did that when I was a kid. And if you show them that you won't tolerate it in the first place, it'll stop happening. Promise. Kids aren't stupid, they know what works. They know they'll get what they want if they just keep at it, and there is NO DOWNSIDE to them. No punishment that I hear you implementing, no going without, nothing. Try it... hold them accountable, and they'll act accountably.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (1)

nanoakron (234907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723156)

But he wouldn't dare give a short, sharp smack to his little snowflakes! ...as has been done through human history and even before we existed.

Young animals are designed to learn through punishment of negative behaviour. Often physical.

Children simply don't have the psychological makeup to understand and process 'modern' idiot parenting techniques such as time-outs. Hence they grow up to be horrors as they age.

Smack your kids. Or at least threaten to do it. They will thank you.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22722542)

You will cave in. You don't know you will, but trust me--and every other parent out there--you will cave, and buy it whatever it wants to just shut it up.

So Yeah. There is no 'Just don't buy it' crap with kids. Someday, if you ever get out of your parents basement, you will know that.


Your the parent with the screaming kids in the restaurant aren't you? No discipline and no class.

My folks "just didn't buy it" (1)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722704)

And they tell me that I slowly learned that I couldn't have everything right now and learned the valuable lesson of patience as well as an early understanding of moderation.

I'm glad they did. At such time as I may reproduce I intend to teach my offspring the same way.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (4, Insightful)

EMB Numbers (934125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722798)

There are obviously a wide range of natural temperaments among young children. However, as the father of three, I assure you that not all children behave as described, and I suspect that almost all children can be trained not to behave as described. (Some mental illness or developmental disability might preclude such training).

The reason that bystanders stare in horror at seriously misbehaving children and parents is that such behavior is NOT normal and is therefore unexpected/shocking. People also stare when adults are abusive or disruptive or antisocial. Any behavior outside normal conventions will prompt staring.

My advise is that young children like to have rules and behavioral boundaries. Clear rules make them feel socially confident and reduce anxiety. Children test the boundaries when they feel insecure, and the best response is to reinforce the previously established boundaries. That makes them feel like the world is stable and sensible. When a parent moves the boundaries or the child can't find the boundaries, nobody will be happy - least of all the child. Interestingly, the exact same guidance applies to puppies.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22722966)

you are three seconds away from killing everybody within a 50' radius of you. Oh, and this happens every single time you go to the store. Like clockwork.

Don't feel bad. We want to kill you too. I don't blame the kid.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea... (1)

Monkey_Genius (669908) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723100)

I, for one, cannot wait until I can get Wheaties with Barbados Slim limboing away on the front of the box.

Our ugly future (3, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721478)

Personally, as the parent of a 3-year-old technophile, I'm dreading the animated cereal boxes.

In another twenty years there will likely not be a surface anywhere that isn't animated. The animated billboards and signs are already here.

As if having blinking shiney flashey crap on the internet isn't bad enough now we're subjected to it in meatspace.

Re:Our ugly future (2, Funny)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721578)

As if having blinking shiney flashey crap on the internet isn't bad enough now we're subjected to it in meatspace.

Except that meatspace has it's own rules. Same way that most of those anonymous internet jerks would never act the same way face to face*. Annoying flashing stuff on a website? Limited stuff you can do about it. Annoying flashing sign in meatspace? 30 seconds with a hammer or wire cutters or even a battery depending on the electrical tolerance and you are good to go. Problem solved.

*Please note. Meatspace has its own brand of assholes. I acknowledge that The two groups are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Our ugly future (1)

JrOldPhart (1063610) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721744)

Then 30 days in the lockup plus restitution, because the cops nab you as you climb down off the electronic billboard you just smashed up.

Re:Our ugly future (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721904)

Then 30 days in the lockup plus restitution, because the cops nab you as you climb down off the electronic billboard you just smashed up.

And I can avoid, say weather.com but if I get a traffic ticket I must go to the Sangamon County Courthouse. Ironically, there is one of those billboards at the Prarie Capital Convention Center across the street from the Sangamon County Courthouse, which also houses the Sangamon County Jail.

If you threaten someone with a large butcher knife [slashdot.org] in Sangamon County you'll get fifteen days [slashdot.org] in the Sangamon County Jail across from the blinking flashing billboard (which you can no longer see from the jail as they replaced the glass with translucent glass to stop women from flashing the prisoners).

That is, so long as you don't threaten a cop with your little steak knife [slashdot.org] . They'll shoot you dead if you do.

-mcgrew

Re:Our ugly future (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721866)

"Except that meatspace has it's own rules."

That's right. One of those rules is that we don't abuse apostrophes. IT'S means IT IS. The possessive ITS is *already* possessive so it doesn't need an apostrophe. "*Please note. Meatspace has its own brand of assholes."

Weird. You got it correct there.

Re:Our ugly future (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721960)

...Because meatspace is all well and good, but it's a good idea to spend some time in greengrocerspace as well.

Re:Our ugly future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721704)

Is there anyone else out there who has a serious itch to hack into one of those animated billboards??? I wonder how hard it would be.....

Re:Our ugly future (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721732)

great, I can't wait for adverts on my chopsticks.

Why does it have to glow? (1)

entmike (469980) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721486)

I'll consider a breakthrough in display technology to be when you can get this on packaging and products that don't have to be self-luminating to be seen. Will I have to "turn off" all my stuff so my bedroom isn't glowing with cereal box labels, empty cheetos and Mt. Dew cans?

And why can't I clean up my room and eat better anyway?

Re:Why does it have to glow? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721576)

I sense a future in marketing personal EMP devices.

Look at this also another way: stores can save millions in lighting bills.

Re:Why does it have to glow? (3, Informative)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721804)

OLED = organic LIGHT EMITTING diode

Re:Why does it have to glow? (4, Informative)

leoc (4746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721926)

So called "interferometric modulator" [wikipedia.org] displays (IMOD for short) would be what you are looking for. It'll be a while before they are printed onto cereal boxes, but the potential is there.

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721496)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
goatse thru to the other side [goatse.ch]

Integration with membrane keypads? (1)

Rorschach1 (174480) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721500)

I was just thinking about this the other day. You can already get membrane keypads fairly cheaply (after a few grand in setup fees, anyway) but until now, displays have always required more mechanical complexity. How long before they start printing screens along with keypads?

Yeah, I think most of the keypads suck (the metal dome type aren't as bad), but it still means a richer user interface and lower cost devices. And probably animated cereal boxes.

Is this for lighting or displays? (4, Interesting)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721516)

Most of the linked articles talk about "new technology for lighting" as in panel lights for rooms and such. Are these panels being manufactured for display tech too? Or is the refresh rate not fast enough yet?

Re:Is this for lighting or displays? (5, Informative)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721768)

For OLEDs refresh rates aren't a problem, patterning is. I presume this roll to roll technique is for lighting, as lighting panels don't require high precision deposition, just fire on the layers in a big mixture and go. When you move towards displays then you want very precise RGB pixels, patterned in a specific way, and a resolution of HD. For evaporation deposition that requires a shadow mask and 3 separate events for each colour. Shadow masks are a pain.

The reason Sony have only managed an 11" OLED display (and at $1500 they are still making a loss) is due to the difficulties of pattering it all (and getting good consistency). For GE and white light it is much much more straight forward. Whack on the layers, connect it up and go - they don't need to worry about any patterns. In the longer term solution processable OLEDs would substantially improve things. Solution processable means inkjet deposition (just like home printers), which means fine control of deposition and the ability to run with a roll to roll techniques. Solution processability is a few years away, however.

Re:Is this for lighting or displays? (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722340)

So GE can clean up by marketing this as super-efficient lighting, and then plow the profits from that into highly-efficient displays in the future? W00t.

Re:Is this for lighting or displays? (4, Informative)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721812)

The key advantage of OLED is that it does not require a backlight. Meaning, since they are technically stamped emitting diodes, their backlight is "built-in" so to speak. The main issue with OLED's is that their life has never been real good, at about 10K hours in most applications which is real low... They also suffer from problems just like their cousin LED's where their luminance decreases pretty dramatically over time depending on usage and heat buildup. Think of this like bleaching of colors in the areas of the screen that get used the most. Refresh rates really have never been an issue with OLED's from my understanding. In short, a number of additional technology issues will still need to be worked out for OLED's to get widespread application usage...

Re:Is this for lighting or displays? (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722302)

a number of additional technology issues will still need to be worked out for OLED's to get widespread application usage...
"Cheap" is a cure-all for a lot of applications. If I can swap in a new screen for $25 and 5 minutes (like a toner cartridge), then 10K hours isn't so low.

Re:Is this for lighting or displays? (1)

Achoi77 (669484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722850)

YOU FOOL! The last thing we needed was for HP to read this post and come up with a new business plan for the next twenty five years. :-(

Cheap, disposable television units with easily swappable screens, given fixed prices on them.. arrgh! I want a television that lasts more than 3 months goddammit!

Re:Is this for lighting or displays? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722526)

I think the lifetime has improved, such that blue is speced out to be 30k hours, the other colors higher, but given that blue fades quickest, the blue is the limiting factor here. I could be wrong on the typical life, but it's been a year since I looked at it.

Re:Is this for lighting or displays? (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722794)

Regular (not organic) LED lighting is reasonable for some applications already. The efficiency is very high. The light output is fairly low, but it's highly directional, so that's why you're starting to see it a lot in applications like flashlights. You can get LED bulbs that screw into a regular 110 V receptacle. I have an LED reading light next to my bed, and it works great; in the evening when I'm reading in bed, I use a low-wattage CF bulb to light up the room just enough so I don't feel like I'm in a cave, and the LED reading lamp puts enough extra light on the page so that I'm comfortable reading.

Cost? (2, Interesting)

WaHooCrazy7 (1220464) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721572)

How much did the cost come down? I couldn't find a figure in the article that stated any hard facts that this is really going to materialize.

Slashdotted already? (1)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721610)

I can't reach TFA. Is the server Slashdotted already?

Sure are alot of... (1)

Scubafish (1224972) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721636)

large dead pixels on that strip! Looks like they still have some work cut out for them.

Green production? (2, Interesting)

NMajik (935461) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721668)

Although the OLEDs require significantly less energy to power and are "green" in that respect, I would like to read more about the environmental impact of producing them; not just at the so called roll to roll level, but all the way from raw material to finished product. Many a "green" product has had unforeseen side effects that have made them unfavorable.

oled = bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721714)

when will these fools learn? who the hell wants a device made of a material that's just gonna rot into a stinky, decomposing mess?

Animated meatspace (4, Interesting)

bornwaysouth (1138751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722022)

> Personally, as the parent of a 3-year-old technophile, I'm dreading the animated cereal boxes.

I can see the counter-adverts on the ordinary boxes now "GE Free". And on the animated boxes "Cereal may contain nuts and batteries"

What I have been wanting for some time is something to brighten the sheer boredom of riding in a corporate lift. (I accept that stores and the like will batter a captive audience with ads so they are tortured into compliance by the time they arrive. Shut eyes, turn up iPod.)

The idea is to have something other than, say, a big 13 drifting past to tell you you have passed floor 13. I'd like a small 13, but some nice elevation dependent pictures. Earth and grass for the ground floor. Apples or tweety-birds for the next floor and so on. Eagles well up. And of course, space junk for senior managerial levels. Top floor a galaxy, with a warning that they are only 4% ordinary matter.

But I am bothered about the basement images. I'd rather avoid drippy caves, and anything with religious overtones. Suggestions anyone?

Re:Animated meatspace (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22722222)

How about stacks of comic books, and a fat balding man in his forties yelling at his mom.

Re:Animated meatspace (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723318)

Underwater scenes. Denser and denser forest. Older and older historical recreations of the building site. A zoom out from Earth to the solar system, and so on. Skiing down a mountain. Parachuting.

Still, Hell would be a lot more fun.

doctored government photo (1)

junner518 (1235322) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722242)

[see green link at top]

Energy for lighting is one of the main resource hogs around the world. Staring at an image of the earth at night, it doesn't take much to see how dependent we are.
(image)http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/earth_lights_lrg.jpg [nasa.gov]

i think someone found the brightness/contrast tool

green? (1, Insightful)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722682)

It seems pretty silly to me that people think we are helping the environment by saving a few watts on our computer monitors. Meanwhile, billions of people are coming onto the grid and using coal power. It isn't even a drop in the ocean.

I see people putting up a few solar panels here and there, maybe generating enough energy to take a fraction out of their air conditioning bill, and I wonder if they are stupid. Even if everyone in the united states did the same thing, or even the entire world did the same thing, the carbon output would still be rising because industry requires a phenomenal amount of energy that can't be supplied or even offset significantly by these sorts of technologies.

These sorts of efforts are all about feeling good about the environment, while actually doing nothing to put a significant dent in the carbon output and reduce the damage that global warming will cause. Switching over to OLED monitors is kind of like spitting into a volcano to stop an eruption.

The truth is that most of the green technologies being put forward today are just fashion statements and a distraction from the real solutions, and it is technically impossible to solve our real problems with them. Most carbon output comes from power generation and transportation. In order to make a dent, we need to switch almost entirely over to power sources that have no carbon output, and we need to make a major push to mass transit.

Unfortunately, the issues get complicated in regards to power generation without carbon because the only existing technology that could replace all of our coal plants is nuclear power, and there isn't a lot of political will for nuclear power in the united states. Usually people put forward solar power, wind power, or biofuel as solutions, unfortunately, when you actually look at solar power and wind power, it is technically impossible to make a dent in our power output with these technologies because they only generate power a small percentage of the time, whereas power draw stays high 24/7. Biofuel production on the other hand actually generates more carbon than coal once you try to scale it up, and the government initiatives related to it are a huge fiasco.

People keep waiting around for an easy solution to our problems, and one that makes them feel good. Unfortunately, that's not how life works, all of the solutions have downsides and all of them require us to make sacrifices. Sadly, it's pretty obvious that we're going to wait until the situation is much more desperate than it already is before making significant efforts at change.

Re:green? (1)

Scamwise (174654) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723348)

What a total cop out.
Because someone is even worse than me why should I bother trying to improve things...
Way to go!

I've been waiting for this! Dream coming true! (1)

siriusdogstar (1151547) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723128)

A tradepaperback, each of the 1, 2, 3, or more hundred double-sided touch-capable OLED pages, with cpu, ram, terabyte flash, & other devs, also "printed" using similar techniques, as layers of the cover, powered by a "printed" air-battery & "printed" solar cells. Looks like a book, feels like a book, but wow the capabilities...

OLED displays needed (3, Interesting)

TheSync (5291) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723272)

One of the things we've found out is that no HD LCD, plasma, or rear-projection DLP displays are as good as a broadcast reference CRT monitor in terms of luminance dynamic range, viewing angle, or color gamut. Only front-projection DLPs seem to be able to match good quality CRTs, but then you need all that space for the projection.

OLEDs have a real chance of matching or even beating CRTs in a true "flat panel" form factor.

And I also like the idea of using OLED rolls as wallpaper so we can have 7,680 × 4,320 pixel video on the wall (which will, of course, need 22.2 surround sound (UHDTV [wikipedia.org] ).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?