-= Frank Black Forum =-

-= Frank Black Forum =-

All Forums

Off Topic!

General Chat

Nanotechnology Possibilities

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON

Smilies

[quote][i]Originally posted by harringk[/i]
[br]This article is kind of long, but I thought it was an interesting look at the possibly dramatic changes that nanotechnology could bring to life as we know it.  I think that anybody that lives another 30 or 40 years in going to see some crazy shit.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb102704.shtml

October 27, 2004

Nanotechnology: Hell or Heaven?

Perhaps a little bit of both

Ronald Bailey

When it comes to the possibilities of nanotechnology, it can be hard to know what to expect: glittering visions of abundance and long, healthy life spans; fears of out-of-control world-destroying devices, pervasive surveillance tyrannies, and devastating nanotech wars; or maybe all of the above. The Foresight Institute's First Conference on Advanced Nanotechnology held last week across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., offered hope, fear, and audacious scenarios for the future.

First, the fabulous visions. Sociologist Bryan Bruns, a research associate at the Foresight Institute, talked about "Applying Nanotechnology to the Challenges of Global Poverty." Some 2.7 billion of our fellow human beings now live on less than $2 per day, with 1.1 billion of them living on less than $1 per day. Two billion have no access to electricity.

To illustrate what nanotech progress might do for the world's poor, Bruns imagined a potential Whole Earth Catalog for 2025, loaded with nanotech devices. He found low energy ultra-efficient water filtration systems that could purify any contaminated or saline water into fresh water suitable for drinking or irrigation. (An earlier presentation by Gayle Pergamit described a water filtration system using nanopore membranes now being developed by Aguavia, in which a six-inch cube of membranes could purify 100,000 gallons of water a day.)

Even the world's poorest could shop this 2025 catalog for cheap solar roofing panels. The sturdy plastic panels are composed of "failsoft" nanocells that automatically reroute electric flows if the panels are cut, nailed, or damaged. As evidence that such panels are possible, Bruns cited the work of Konarka, a company developing cheap solar panels that come in rolls like Saran Wrap.

This 2025 catalog would also offer "comsets"�extremely powerful energy-sparing computers that would fit entirely inside the frames of eyeglasses or in jewelry. The comsets would come complete with 120 courses for learning different skills.

Nanoclinics will be a popular choice in 2025 for those living far from hospitals and doctors. Nanoclinics the size of suitcases, powered by those cheap solar panels, will contain a full range of diagnostics and therapeutics, along with preventive and restorative treatments.

"Turn trash into treasure," reads the 2025 catalog copy for nanorefineries that can break down any unwanted consumer items, sewage sludge, and any other waste. The nanorefineries could be linked directly to nanofabs to provide feedstocks for producing new consumer goods.

Chris Phoenix, director of research for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, talked about "Clean Molecular Manufacturing," whose slogan could be "No Atom Left Behind." Nanotech manufacturing means doing chemistry mechanically�building products with each atom precisely placed, in which all molecular bonds are strong enough to survive at room temperature. Phoenix also believes that nanotech manufacturing will tend to use the lighter elements, such as nitrogen and carbon, at the top of the periodic table. Consequently nanotech products will be less toxic and easy to recycle. You could, for example, just burn your laptop to dispose of it cleanly.

Molecular computers produced by nanotech manufacturing will be one million times smaller than today's; motors could be just 50 nanometers across. (A nanometer is about the length of ten hydrogen atoms lined up.) These fabrication miracles will be achieved through autoproductive manufacturing. A nanotech factory can build new factories, leading to exponential increases in manufacturing capability in very short order.

Phoenix foresees the computing power of today's Earth Simulator available in a cubic millimeter run on two watts of electricity. Nanomaterials will be 100 times stronger than steel, making possible the 10-pound airplane, yacht, and car. (For comparison, a hang glider today typically weighs 60 pounds.) "This sounds outrageous," said Phoenix, "But it's completely plausible."

In a presentation on "The Top Ten Impacts of Molecular Manufacturing," Phoenix predicted that products made using a mature molecular nanotechnology would cost $1 per pound to make. After nanotech factories hit their stride, molecular manufacturing will provide more manufacturing capacity than all the world's factories offer today. We will see the advent of cheap solar power and cheap energy storage, and inconceivably cheap high-powered computers the size of wristwatches. The components needed to put a kilogram of material into orbit would fit inside of a suitcase. Nanotechnology would make it possible for 100 billion people to live sustainably at a modern American standard of living, while indoor agriculture using high-efficiency inflatable ten-pound diamond greenhouses would help restore the world's ecology. The ultimate limit to economic growth seems to be heat pollution, the waste energy radiated away from nanotech devices.

According to Robert Freitas, the medical nanotech guru at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, not only will nanotechnology provide us with a lot of cool stuff and eliminate global poverty, it will also help us live a really long time. In his lecture on "Nanomedicine and Medical Nanorobotics," Freitas predicted that we would see in the next five years biologically active nanoparticles used as diagnostic sensors. He also described a project at the University of Michigan to use tecto-dendrimers, complex tree shaped molecules that could be designed to simultaneously sense and destroy cancer cells.

But Freitas' vision and true passion is medical nanorobots. He has designed respirocytes composed of 18 billion precisely arranged atoms, consisting of a shell of sapphire with an onboard computer. It will be embedded with rotors to sort oxygen from carbon dioxide molecules. These respirocytes would be able to hold oxygen at 100,000 atmospheres of pressure. Just five cc's of respirocytes, 1/1000th the volume of the body's 30 trillion oxygen and carbon dioxide carrying red blood cells, could supply enough oxygen to keep alive for four hours a person whose heart had stopped.

The nanotech future sketched above sounds truly glorious. But nanotech dystopia also beckons.

After all, the Foresight Institute was primarily established not to celebrate the advent of nanotechnology, but to address concerns about the possible catastrophic misuse of it. The dystopic nanotech vision was summed up by the problem of "gray goo," in which nanotech self-replicators either escape or are deliberately released and convert the entire biosphere into copies of themselves in a matter of days.

However, nanotech savants like Eric Drexler at Foresight and Chris Phoenix no longer believe that efficient molecular manufacturing will involve self-replicating nanobots. Instead they foresee self-contained desktop nanofabs under the complete control of operators. They would function somewhat like photocopiers do today�producing copies of products on demand from various feedstocks supplied by operators.

Still, it would be surprising if such a powerful suite of technologies couldn't be used for ill as well as for good. Chris Phoenix worried about tensions between consumers and corporations since "the value of nanotech products is 1000 times greater than their manufacturing costs." Evidently, he believes that corporations will try to push the prices of their products up to obtain super high profits. As a corollary, Phoenix thinks that this will lead, at least initially, to higher concentrations of wealth.

Unless there is just one super powerful corporation with sole access to and complete control over nanofabs, this scenario seems highly implausible. Competition between firms will drive down prices as it always has. If nanofabs build themselves and are as general purpose as nanotech boosters believe they will be, inventors will likely just give them away, and economics based on scarcity and rationing by prices will disappear. How the economy will be structured once material scarcity disappears cannot now be known, but a post-manufacturing, post-job economy will certainly not be dominated by giant corporations.

I suspect that human needs for status, hierarchy, and competition will move away from the economic arena to art, scientific research, and politics. For example, handmade items, e.g., paintings and genetically modified orchids, will become much more expensive relative to consumer goods like cars and computers. Bryan Bruns foresees the growth of an "experience economy" in which novel experiences, not mere objects, will be sought after.

Nanotechnology begets more worrisome concerns in the area of civil liberties and human rights. Phoenix notes that nanotech enables the creation of cheap ubiquitous sensors for surveillance. Imagine the East German Stasi with microscopic television cameras in every home, office, car, and on every piece of your clothing.

Phoenix also notes, "Any unrestricted nanofactory could become a WMD factory." (A restricted nanofactory would be one that can produce only certified pre-programmed designs.) In a nano world, it would be incredibly hard to find out what other countries are doing and/or verifying treaty commitments when it comes to weapons. The temptation to pre-empt a possible attack by launching yours first may become irresistible.

Small high-performance nanoproducts could also aid in freelance criminal attack and spying. In the future you might receive a call in which a voice tells you, "I have embedded something near your heart. Wire some money to this Swiss bank account or else I'll kill you in an hour."

Brad Templeton, the chair of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, talked about "The Automation of Good and Evil," discussing privacy concerns raised by nanotech. The future will likely see cheap ubiquitous sensors using micropower supplies linked to cheap ubiquitous networks in both private and public hands. Surveillance might be undetectable because, instead of using radio or laser pulses to send out information, the sensors might just crawl out of your house or office to be collected by their operators.

Templeton doesn't believe laws can stop such surveillance, though perhaps there might be a nanotech arms race between would-be watchers and those seeking to guard their privacy. Perhaps social conventions would evolve so that people simply don't watch one another in certain circumstances. He did point out that surveillance by oppressors has never been a complete success (though nanotech seems to offer a technical solution that allows unprecedented ubiquity).

Is there any way to manage such possible nanothreats? The Foresight Institute has been devising guidelines for the safe development of nanotech. The Institute released its new 4.0 Version of the guidelines earlier this year. One of the chief guidelines is that the creation and use of self-replicating systems should generally be avoided.

Phoenix evidently believes (or perhaps just hopes) that concerted, planned human foresight can maximize benefits and minimize risks. However, our species' record for the type of long-range planning Phoenix implies we need frankly sucks. Even with the devoted efforts of a bunch of really smart people like those at the Foresight conference, it's not likely to get much better. "The alternative is to accept drastic change that we can neither predict nor change," declares Phoenix. That's been true for all of human history and it's not going to change for the nano-bio-info-cognitive technological era now dawning.

The hopeful news is that while technological advances could in fact make humanity worse off, that has not been our record so far. Every technological advance has produced downsides, but so far the benefits have far outweighed the risks. It's my bet that that will also be true of nanotechnology. We are unlikely to descend to nanotech hell. But it is probably inevitable that some of us will be scorched by a bit of nanotech hellfire as we ascend to nanotech heaven.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His new book, Liberation Biology: A Moral and Scientific Defense of the Biotech Revolution will be published in early 2005.
[/quote]

Check here to include your profile signature.

T O P I C R E V I E W
harringk	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 12:08:21 This article is kind of long, but I thought it was an interesting look at the possibly dramatic changes that nanotechnology could bring to life as we know it. I think that anybody that lives another 30 or 40 years in going to see some crazy shit. http://www.reason.com/rb/rb102704.shtml October 27, 2004 Nanotechnology: Hell or Heaven? Perhaps a little bit of both Ronald Bailey When it comes to the possibilities of nanotechnology, it can be hard to know what to expect: glittering visions of abundance and long, healthy life spans; fears of out-of-control world-destroying devices, pervasive surveillance tyrannies, and devastating nanotech wars; or maybe all of the above. The Foresight Institute's First Conference on Advanced Nanotechnology held last week across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., offered hope, fear, and audacious scenarios for the future. First, the fabulous visions. Sociologist Bryan Bruns, a research associate at the Foresight Institute, talked about "Applying Nanotechnology to the Challenges of Global Poverty." Some 2.7 billion of our fellow human beings now live on less than $2 per day, with 1.1 billion of them living on less than $1 per day. Two billion have no access to electricity. To illustrate what nanotech progress might do for the world's poor, Bruns imagined a potential Whole Earth Catalog for 2025, loaded with nanotech devices. He found low energy ultra-efficient water filtration systems that could purify any contaminated or saline water into fresh water suitable for drinking or irrigation. (An earlier presentation by Gayle Pergamit described a water filtration system using nanopore membranes now being developed by Aguavia, in which a six-inch cube of membranes could purify 100,000 gallons of water a day.) Even the world's poorest could shop this 2025 catalog for cheap solar roofing panels. The sturdy plastic panels are composed of "failsoft" nanocells that automatically reroute electric flows if the panels are cut, nailed, or damaged. As evidence that such panels are possible, Bruns cited the work of Konarka, a company developing cheap solar panels that come in rolls like Saran Wrap. This 2025 catalog would also offer "comsets"�extremely powerful energy-sparing computers that would fit entirely inside the frames of eyeglasses or in jewelry. The comsets would come complete with 120 courses for learning different skills. Nanoclinics will be a popular choice in 2025 for those living far from hospitals and doctors. Nanoclinics the size of suitcases, powered by those cheap solar panels, will contain a full range of diagnostics and therapeutics, along with preventive and restorative treatments. "Turn trash into treasure," reads the 2025 catalog copy for nanorefineries that can break down any unwanted consumer items, sewage sludge, and any other waste. The nanorefineries could be linked directly to nanofabs to provide feedstocks for producing new consumer goods. Chris Phoenix, director of research for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, talked about "Clean Molecular Manufacturing," whose slogan could be "No Atom Left Behind." Nanotech manufacturing means doing chemistry mechanically�building products with each atom precisely placed, in which all molecular bonds are strong enough to survive at room temperature. Phoenix also believes that nanotech manufacturing will tend to use the lighter elements, such as nitrogen and carbon, at the top of the periodic table. Consequently nanotech products will be less toxic and easy to recycle. You could, for example, just burn your laptop to dispose of it cleanly. Molecular computers produced by nanotech manufacturing will be one million times smaller than today's; motors could be just 50 nanometers across. (A nanometer is about the length of ten hydrogen atoms lined up.) These fabrication miracles will be achieved through autoproductive manufacturing. A nanotech factory can build new factories, leading to exponential increases in manufacturing capability in very short order. Phoenix foresees the computing power of today's Earth Simulator available in a cubic millimeter run on two watts of electricity. Nanomaterials will be 100 times stronger than steel, making possible the 10-pound airplane, yacht, and car. (For comparison, a hang glider today typically weighs 60 pounds.) "This sounds outrageous," said Phoenix, "But it's completely plausible." In a presentation on "The Top Ten Impacts of Molecular Manufacturing," Phoenix predicted that products made using a mature molecular nanotechnology would cost $1 per pound to make. After nanotech factories hit their stride, molecular manufacturing will provide more manufacturing capacity than all the world's factories offer today. We will see the advent of cheap solar power and cheap energy storage, and inconceivably cheap high-powered computers the size of wristwatches. The components needed to put a kilogram of material into orbit would fit inside of a suitcase. Nanotechnology would make it possible for 100 billion people to live sustainably at a modern American standard of living, while indoor agriculture using high-efficiency inflatable ten-pound diamond greenhouses would help restore the world's ecology. The ultimate limit to economic growth seems to be heat pollution, the waste energy radiated away from nanotech devices. According to Robert Freitas, the medical nanotech guru at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, not only will nanotechnology provide us with a lot of cool stuff and eliminate global poverty, it will also help us live a really long time. In his lecture on "Nanomedicine and Medical Nanorobotics," Freitas predicted that we would see in the next five years biologically active nanoparticles used as diagnostic sensors. He also described a project at the University of Michigan to use tecto-dendrimers, complex tree shaped molecules that could be designed to simultaneously sense and destroy cancer cells. But Freitas' vision and true passion is medical nanorobots. He has designed respirocytes composed of 18 billion precisely arranged atoms, consisting of a shell of sapphire with an onboard computer. It will be embedded with rotors to sort oxygen from carbon dioxide molecules. These respirocytes would be able to hold oxygen at 100,000 atmospheres of pressure. Just five cc's of respirocytes, 1/1000th the volume of the body's 30 trillion oxygen and carbon dioxide carrying red blood cells, could supply enough oxygen to keep alive for four hours a person whose heart had stopped. The nanotech future sketched above sounds truly glorious. But nanotech dystopia also beckons. After all, the Foresight Institute was primarily established not to celebrate the advent of nanotechnology, but to address concerns about the possible catastrophic misuse of it. The dystopic nanotech vision was summed up by the problem of "gray goo," in which nanotech self-replicators either escape or are deliberately released and convert the entire biosphere into copies of themselves in a matter of days. However, nanotech savants like Eric Drexler at Foresight and Chris Phoenix no longer believe that efficient molecular manufacturing will involve self-replicating nanobots. Instead they foresee self-contained desktop nanofabs under the complete control of operators. They would function somewhat like photocopiers do today�producing copies of products on demand from various feedstocks supplied by operators. Still, it would be surprising if such a powerful suite of technologies couldn't be used for ill as well as for good. Chris Phoenix worried about tensions between consumers and corporations since "the value of nanotech products is 1000 times greater than their manufacturing costs." Evidently, he believes that corporations will try to push the prices of their products up to obtain super high profits. As a corollary, Phoenix thinks that this will lead, at least initially, to higher concentrations of wealth. Unless there is just one super powerful corporation with sole access to and complete control over nanofabs, this scenario seems highly implausible. Competition between firms will drive down prices as it always has. If nanofabs build themselves and are as general purpose as nanotech boosters believe they will be, inventors will likely just give them away, and economics based on scarcity and rationing by prices will disappear. How the economy will be structured once material scarcity disappears cannot now be known, but a post-manufacturing, post-job economy will certainly not be dominated by giant corporations. I suspect that human needs for status, hierarchy, and competition will move away from the economic arena to art, scientific research, and politics. For example, handmade items, e.g., paintings and genetically modified orchids, will become much more expensive relative to consumer goods like cars and computers. Bryan Bruns foresees the growth of an "experience economy" in which novel experiences, not mere objects, will be sought after. Nanotechnology begets more worrisome concerns in the area of civil liberties and human rights. Phoenix notes that nanotech enables the creation of cheap ubiquitous sensors for surveillance. Imagine the East German Stasi with microscopic television cameras in every home, office, car, and on every piece of your clothing. Phoenix also notes, "Any unrestricted nanofactory could become a WMD factory." (A restricted nanofactory would be one that can produce only certified pre-programmed designs.) In a nano world, it would be incredibly hard to find out what other countries are doing and/or verifying treaty commitments when it comes to weapons. The temptation to pre-empt a possible attack by launching yours first may become irresistible. Small high-performance nanoproducts could also aid in freelance criminal attack and spying. In the future you might receive a call in which a voice tells you, "I have embedded something near your heart. Wire some money to this Swiss bank account or else I'll kill you in an hour." Brad Templeton, the chair of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, talked about "The Automation of Good and Evil," discussing privacy concerns raised by nanotech. The future will likely see cheap ubiquitous sensors using micropower supplies linked to cheap ubiquitous networks in both private and public hands. Surveillance might be undetectable because, instead of using radio or laser pulses to send out information, the sensors might just crawl out of your house or office to be collected by their operators. Templeton doesn't believe laws can stop such surveillance, though perhaps there might be a nanotech arms race between would-be watchers and those seeking to guard their privacy. Perhaps social conventions would evolve so that people simply don't watch one another in certain circumstances. He did point out that surveillance by oppressors has never been a complete success (though nanotech seems to offer a technical solution that allows unprecedented ubiquity). Is there any way to manage such possible nanothreats? The Foresight Institute has been devising guidelines for the safe development of nanotech. The Institute released its new 4.0 Version of the guidelines earlier this year. One of the chief guidelines is that the creation and use of self-replicating systems should generally be avoided. Phoenix evidently believes (or perhaps just hopes) that concerted, planned human foresight can maximize benefits and minimize risks. However, our species' record for the type of long-range planning Phoenix implies we need frankly sucks. Even with the devoted efforts of a bunch of really smart people like those at the Foresight conference, it's not likely to get much better. "The alternative is to accept drastic change that we can neither predict nor change," declares Phoenix. That's been true for all of human history and it's not going to change for the nano-bio-info-cognitive technological era now dawning. The hopeful news is that while technological advances could in fact make humanity worse off, that has not been our record so far. Every technological advance has produced downsides, but so far the benefits have far outweighed the risks. It's my bet that that will also be true of nanotechnology. We are unlikely to descend to nanotech hell. But it is probably inevitable that some of us will be scorched by a bit of nanotech hellfire as we ascend to nanotech heaven. Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His new book, Liberation Biology: A Moral and Scientific Defense of the Biotech Revolution will be published in early 2005.
32 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
harringk	Posted - 10/29/2004 : 09:22:30 quote: Originally posted by Ebb Vicious i'm really, really bored of interacting with you and i'm going to avoid it from now on as much as i can. Thanks, I would really appreciate that.
Ebb Vicious	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 19:33:03 quote: Originally posted by harringk Just because I can see through John Kerry, and believe that we need to be proactive rather than reactive in our national security doesn't make me a republican. I would have no problem voting for a democrat if they weren't all so fucking stupid. no, it's regurgitating all kinds of retarded republican hyperbole that makes you a republican stooge. i'm really, really bored of interacting with you and i'm going to avoid it from now on as much as i can.
n/a	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 19:26:43 have! It's just started, that thread is some real craziness Frank Black ate my hamster
harringk	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 19:12:46 quote: Originally posted by Tre [ponders that it was a great example but realises it would involve you maybe thinking outside the box a little so in this respect was a bad example..... hey harringk, it's my birthday, you not going to give me birthday wishes! I'm 24 today (in Brit-Land)] Frank Black ate my hamster Sorry...Happy Birthday! I thought is was like 3 weeks ago when that thread started. I know we disagree on just about everything (sans Frank Black) but that doesn't matter, I hope you had a good day anyway.
n/a	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 19:06:32 [ponders that it was a great example but realises it would involve you maybe thinking outside the box a little so in this respect was a bad example..... hey harringk, it's my birthday, you not going to give me birthday wishes! I'm 24 today (in Brit-Land)] Frank Black ate my hamster
harringk	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 18:58:57 quote: Originally posted by Ebb Vicious it's not a matter of "making it work", it's a matter of is the concept worthwhile or not? the only possible reasonable application is for special ops soldiers who are deployed in small numbers. but they need to be mobile, agile and flexible, and unles the gain was enormous it wouldn't be worth it. let alone the fact that if one person's failed the others become useless. we're not talking about nitty bitty details, i wouldn't begin to try to think of all the ways for pneumatic or mechanical or hydraulic or electro-mechanical boosting to work, or whch one would be best, etc. we're talking about the overall idea, whether it has reasonable applications or not, whether it would possibly be worthwhile. while i'll give you that you are probably too narrow minded and unimaginative to think about such things, i am not. it doesn't take a super-brain. it's just a terrible idea. edit: i wasn't even going to bother addressing it because it's so fucking stupid; but yes, the expenditure of money towards something is not a form of validation! no wonder you're a fucking republican stooge. Just because I can see through John Kerry, and believe that we need to be proactive rather than reactive in our national security doesn't make me a republican. I would have no problem voting for a democrat if they weren't all so fucking stupid.
apl4eris	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 18:57:17 On the "exoskeleton" topic, Laurie Anderson, who was hired on as the first and only artist-in-residence at NASA, spoke of her research and findings in her recent show "The End of the Moon". In part during the performance, she spoke of seeing and learning about a suit that had been designed for astronauts, an exoskeleton of sorts, which had remarkeable armor characteristics, and which contained robotics to, among other things, increase the astronaut's arm strength by a multiple of 60. In case of an arm breaking under such heavy strain during use, there are built-in casts/armatures which fold out and incase the arm while the robotics continue working, and syringes line the suit, ready to pump adrenaline or pain killers, or other chemicals designed to put the wearer out of his or her misery if the need should arise under worse conditions. She went on to say that NASA informed her they lost the contract due to funding cuts, and the suits are now being developed and are in production under a joint contract between MIT and the Pentagon, for near-term use by the military in ground war scenarios.
harringk	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 18:52:40 quote: Originally posted by Tre would like to point out the millions of dollars currently thrown at fucking awfull ideas. Absolutely correct. quote: Originally posted by Tre War in Iraq for example. Bad example.
Ebb Vicious	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 18:42:33 it's not a matter of "making it work", it's a matter of is the concept worthwhile or not? the only possible reasonable application is for special ops soldiers who are deployed in small numbers. but they need to be mobile, agile and flexible, and unles the gain was enormous it wouldn't be worth it. let alone the fact that if one person's failed the others become useless. we're not talking about nitty bitty details, i wouldn't begin to try to think of all the ways for pneumatic or mechanical or hydraulic or electro-mechanical boosting to work, or whch one would be best, etc. we're talking about the overall idea, whether it has reasonable applications or not, whether it would possibly be worthwhile. while i'll give you that you are probably too narrow minded and unimaginative to think about such things, i am not. it doesn't take a super-brain. it's just a terrible idea. edit: i wasn't even going to bother addressing it because it's so fucking stupid; but yes, the expenditure of money towards something is not a form of validation! no wonder you're a fucking republican stooge.
n/a	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 18:41:08 [would like to point out the millions of dollars currently thrown at fucking awfull ideas. War in Iraq for example.] Frank Black ate my hamster
harringk	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 18:38:11 quote: Originally posted by Ebb Vicious quote: Originally posted by harringk Why don't you share the proposed designs you've seen with us? has anyone ever told you that you are absolutely, totally, completely terrible at discussing things? edit: because i know you'll come back with some ridiculou third-grade level retort if i don't; one does not need to see specific designs in order to realize what i said above. please explain to me how i could possibly be wrong about an exoskeleton design being a glorified vehicle, which offers neither the protection of an armoured vehicle, nor the speed or mobility. nor the cost effectiveness. nor the offensive capability. it's just a terrible idea. You have no idea what their designs are and neither do I. Just because you can't think of a way to make it work doesn't mean that isn't possible. One thing I can guarantee is that there are much better minds than yours at work on it, and somebody thought it was a good enough idea to throw some money at it.
Ebb Vicious	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 17:33:33 quote: Originally posted by harringk Why don't you share the proposed designs you've seen with us? has anyone ever told you that you are absolutely, totally, completely terrible at discussing things? edit: because i know you'll come back with some ridiculou third-grade level retort if i don't; one does not need to see specific designs in order to realize what i said above. please explain to me how i could possibly be wrong about an exoskeleton design being a glorified vehicle, which offers neither the protection of an armoured vehicle, nor the speed or mobility. nor the cost effectiveness. nor the offensive capability. it's just a terrible idea.
n/a	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 17:27:55 [jumps in to point out gene therapy is neither redundant or going nowhere fast in reference to broken parts comment, it's still an exciting and progressive field actually, proteomics, genomics, gene technology and all related fields are going to revolutionize modern medicine as soon as the universitys manage fix it to a costing that the medical companys can abuse to their own gain] [and people stop freaking out about stem cells and recombinant DNA and gene technology as a whole] [jumps out again, I'm bored of nanotech and bored of the endless nanotech articles in new scientist that seem to crop up at least once a month] Frank Black ate my hamster
harringk	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 17:06:13 quote: Originally posted by Ebb Vicious the exoskeleton idea is another example of the problem of insufficient monitoring of defense spending. it's obviously retarded, it's a glorified vehicle. one which does not offer any of the advantages of existing ones, and one which can only "transport" one person. stupid as hell. Why don't you share the proposed designs you've seen with us?
Ebb Vicious	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 16:31:04 the exoskeleton idea is another example of the problem of insufficient monitoring of defense spending. it's obviously retarded, it's a glorified vehicle. one which does not offer any of the advantages of existing ones, and one which can only "transport" one person. stupid as hell.
harringk	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 16:26:16 quote: Originally posted by darwin Isn't that true for any technology? My point is that some bigwigs at NSF think it has enough promise that they are spending money on more research. Maybe that does mean too much. Look at the projects DARPA (the military's research unit) is spending money on: http://www.darpa.mil/dso/programs.htm "Mathematical time reversal" is perhaps my favorite. Interesting link Darwin. Kind of makes you wonder what they're NOT telling us about. I liked the "Exoskeletons for Human Performance Augmentation (EHPA)" http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/matdev/ehpa.htm Seems like it would only be practical on a very small scale as I can't imagine what one of these suits would cost.
Ebb Vicious	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 15:55:37 they do that because it has fantastic potential, but whether that potential can be realized or not we don't know. and not all technology is so far away from being implimented when first discovered. it's actually these things that seem to be so far out of reach that usually don't pan out (think perpetual motion, cold fusion, etc.) the most likely applications for nanotechnology in our lifetimes are rather boring by comparison to the things that usually get talked about. but the wikipedia entries talk at great length about this stuff so i don't feel like being redundant.
darwin	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 15:52:14 Isn't that true for any technology? My point is that some bigwigs at NSF think it has enough promise that they are spending money on more research. Maybe that does mean too much. Look at the projects DARPA (the military's research unit) is spending money on: http://www.darpa.mil/dso/programs.htm "Mathematical time reversal" is perhaps my favorite.
Ebb Vicious	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 15:41:48 you misunderstood me. i said it's useless right now, and we don't know if it will ever be useful. i didn't say it won't be, i said we don't know. that is fact, not opinion.
darwin	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 15:31:20 quote: Originally posted by Ebb Vicious if you do some more research in the subject before you post about it you will find that nanotechnology is in the same phase as teleportation; in otherwords, nowhere near useful, and certainly not what the scifi writers would depict. we don't even know if it ever will be truly useful at this point. I can appreciate your general point, but I think it's incorrect to think that nanotechnology is just a useless dream. Here is an nsf call for proposals for research grants in nanotechnology. Good luck finding similar calls for teleportation. http://www.geo.nsf.gov/geo/nano/start.htm The National Science Foundation (NSF) announces a program on collaborative research and education in the area of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NSE). The goal of this program is to support fundamental research and catalyze synergistic science and engineering research and education in emerging areas of nanoscale science and technology, including: biosystems at the nanoscale; nanoscale structures, novel phenomena, and quantum control; device and system architecture; design tools and nanosystems specific software; nanoscale processes in the environment; multi-scale, multi-phenomena modeling and simulation at the nanoscale; manufacturing processes at the nanoscale; and studies on the societal implications of nanoscale science and engineering.
Ebb Vicious	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 15:21:29 duh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology
harringk	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 15:17:16 quote: Originally posted by Ebb Vicious yell? i don't even use caps unless i'm joking around. my point is that everyone but the willfully ignorant already knows this stuff. and if you realy want to share it and discuss it then post an article containing real information, not some article full of speculation and hyperbole. Point taken. As far as posting an article containing "real" information, be my guest, I will not be your monkey...
Ebb Vicious	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 15:08:26 yell? i don't even use caps unless i'm joking around. my point is that everyone but the willfully ignorant already knows this stuff. and if you realy want to share it and discuss it then post an article containing real information, not some article full of speculation and hyperbole.
harringk	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 15:04:46 quote: Originally posted by Ebb Vicious i get annoyed at articles like the one you decided to share because it's obviously a hack piece written by an uninformed cretin. Oh yes, forgive me for forgetting that you are an expert on everything. And if you're not, you can certainly yell loud enough to make is sound like you are. I didn't present this article as something we could look forward to next year. I shared it because I thought it would be interesting reading to people who are not as exceptionally smart and on the cutting edge of everything like yourself.
Ebb Vicious	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 14:29:14 yeah that's my typical response alright, if you check the last 20 threads i've posted in that's what i say word for word in every single one. it's nice you interpret me that way but here's how you should actually read my response: hey it's nice you find this interesting but these are nowhere near new ideas, and there's nothing new to be said on this. if you do some more research in the subject before you post about it you will find that nanotechnology is in the same phase as teleportation; in otherwords, nowhere near useful, and certainly not what the scifi writers would depict. we don't even know if it ever will be truly useful at this point. i get annoyed at articles like the one you decided to share because it's obviously a hack piece written by an uninformed cretin. the fact that it gets recognition and is being shared by you, and doubtless many others, annoys me. the fact that people choose to remain ignorant about things until they see some silly fluff piece like above, which contains no real information, and then feel like they've been informed once they read said articles, annoys me. so i choose to respond in a curt, sarcastic fashion. maybe you don't like it, but i don't like you, so there ya go.
harringk	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 14:22:50 quote: Originally posted by Ebb Vicious quote: Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank Ebb: Nanotech has been around as a concept a lot longer than 1994, but even now is still in its infancy, so what are you trying to say? i just picked 1994 because it had a nice ring to it, and it's 10 years ago. i'm saying exactly what it seems like i'm saying: old news, old ideas, boring, next. In other words, a typical (and predictable) Ebb response: I'm smart, you're stupid, and I'd rather point that out than make any substantive contribution to the topic or to simply ignore it.
Ebb Vicious	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 13:49:42 quote: Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank Ebb: Nanotech has been around as a concept a lot longer than 1994, but even now is still in its infancy, so what are you trying to say? i just picked 1994 because it had a nice ring to it, and it's 10 years ago. i'm saying exactly what it seems like i'm saying: old news, old ideas, boring, next.
harringk	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 13:28:22 quote: Originally posted by broken part All pretty much full of hot air. There was a lot being said about gene therapy in the same fashion and that came to nothing. It reminds me of '50s TV programmes highlighting the latest technological advances and how in 30 years time we were all supposed to be living on the Moon and put this pill in the microwave and out would come a roast chicken. Nanotechnology Schmanotechnology. Don't forget the flying cars we're all supposed to be cruising around in by now. I had pretty much the same reaction as you when I read the article. I'll believe it when I see it. At this point, I would think that the more fantastic they can make it sound the easier it will be to attract funding to continue the research. But regardless of whether or not the Nanotech stuff pans out, I still think we're in for some major changes in the next 30 years or so. At least those of us who are young enough (under 30) to live that long.
Cult_Of_Frank	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 13:21:13 Ebb: Nanotech has been around as a concept a lot longer than 1994, but even now is still in its infancy, so what are you trying to say? "Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)"
broken part	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 13:20:23 All pretty much full of hot air. There was a lot being said about gene therapy in the same fashion and that came to nothing. It reminds me of '50s TV programmes highlighting the latest technological advances and how in 30 years time we were all supposed to be living on the Moon and put this pill in the microwave and out would come a roast chicken. Nanotechnology Schmanotechnology.
Ebb Vicious	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 13:10:49 welcome to 1994.
Cult_Of_Frank	Posted - 10/28/2004 : 12:29:03 Good article. There is a lot of potential for nanotech and it's very exciting. "Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)"

-= Frank Black Forum =-

Snitz Forums 2000