Science and Technology news... :: View topic - The Future Use Of Nanopharmaceuticals on Veterinary Medicine

Jim Logajan · Guest

I>m going to establish my position first by listing some points, then
address some of John Novak>s points (way down below).

(1) The charter, such as it exists, for this group, is in J. Storrs
Hall>s call-for-votes which is archived here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio/msg/97569cbbcd386b58

(2) The "List of Big Eight Newsgroups" summary line for this group has
been for many years:
sci.nanotech Self-reproducing molecular-scale machines. (Moderated)

(3) Newer, older, or alternate definitions of "nanotechnology" do not in
some magical way alter the charter and original intent of this discussion
group as specified in (1) and (2).

(4) Many words have multiple meanings. The meaning of "work" in physics
has a specific and fairly precise meaning, while the colloquial meanings
have little in common with the technical meaning (something I think
everyone can, ahem, work out). One of the first tasks of introductory
physics courses is often the disambiguation of these meanings. Deliberate
creation of multiple meanings for a word is clearly a counterproductive
endeavor for everyone but the poet, punster, or huckster.

(5) Attempts by literalists to disassemble "Nanotechnology" in hopes of
finding its "true" meaning are misguided simply because the subterms are
insufficient to disambiguate the term. The subterms could just as easily
be taken to disambiguate to:
a) Nanosecond technology: the technology of events on the order of a
nanosecond in duration.
b) Nanometer technology: the technology of anything on the order of a
nanometer in length.
c) Nanogram technology: the technology of anything on the order of a
nanogram in mass.
d) Nanodollar technology: technology development on a budget. ;-)

And so on. Obviously the term was, like many invented terms, not meant to
have its meaning discerned by a literal disassembly of its component
terms. But it was, and I don>t think it was done by poets or punsters.

(6) What do Legos[R], large ball bearings, coins, and large gravel have
in common? Among other things, they are all between 1 and 10 centimeter
in size. If ball bearing developers created a term like
"centitechnology" to describe their area of research, it might be odd,
but odder (and more useless still) would be for someone to later apply
the term to uses of Legos, coin making, and gravel.

(7) In the same way that a "Centiscience" journal would be a mass of
articles of little or no overlap or use to readers in the Lego, ball
bearing, coin, and gravel communities, "Nanoscience" journals are an
inefficient collection of disjointed articles because of the nearly
useless form of categorization chosen.

(8) Notwithstanding all of the above, any post that could remotely be
considered relevant to the topics mentioned in (1) or (2) are considered
on topic here - whatever terms one wants to use. And since I may suffer
from lack of imagination at times and may overlook some tenuous link of
nanotech relevance I>ve tried to be open minded in what I approve (low
traffic levels help too!)

Now on to my replies to some of John Novak>s points:

John.S.Novak@panix.com, III <jsn@panix.com> wrote:
[quote]Other practitioners, who are achieving experimental results, have
other definitions.
[/quote]
In my humble opinion, if the results are in any way useful to the
creation or use of self-reproducing molecular-scale machines, then they
are nanotechnology as defined for the purposes of this newsgroup.

[quote]Drexler>s and others' attempts to define nanotechnology to mean only
what they themselves mean has always struck me as all of
narrow-minded, futile, and counter-productive at the same time.

Narrow-minded because both science and engineering are experimental
disciplines of discovery, and asserting total control over the use of
a term whose products have not even been realized in even the most
advanced research lab is hardly a vision of discovery-- it>s a false
assertion that the discoveries have already been made.
[/quote]
Well, physicists don>t assert total control of the word "work," but in
the narrow confines of physicists talking to physicists you>d find them
very "narrow minded" if some of their members suddenly started to use it
with a new meaning.

(I do wonder though: if I>m narrow-minded in using nanotechnology only
with the meaning Drexler first used, are people who dismiss that
technology as bunk broad-minded or narrow-minded? ;-) )

[quote]Futile, because very few people are going to be affected by the end
result of the breastbeating over the topic. At the end of the day,
people are going to use the terms however they want to until a
community consensus is achieved. Want to affect the consensus?
Publish or produce something important.
[/quote]
Drexler published a few things using the term. So did a bunch of other
authors. They even held conferences, complete with published conference
proceedings - and experimental results were presented - all using a
common understanding of nanotechnology. All done over a course of several
years with no ambiguity in the term. While it *may* be futile to fight
the new meanings, we can>t change the name of this newsgroup (though we
could abandon it I suppose) nor is it possible to go back and rewrite all
the old books and such that used Drexler>s meaning.

[quote]Counter-productive, because most people at the sidelines looking in
see these sorts of terminological disputes, and roll their eyes. It
would be lovely, I agree, if everyone meant the same thing when using
the same word. I will even admit that there is a funding-fed
bandwagon effect distorting the term, but it>s little different in any
sexy up and coming field. I think the harm caused by the squabbling
outweighs the harm caused by the loose terminology.
[/quote]
If it was just a dispute over useless terminology, I agree it would be
just an "eye rolling" squabble (though not terribly counter-productive in
my humble opinion). I>m not terribly worried about people on the sideline
- I>m more interested in making sure the people dispensing those funds
you mention really understand what kind of research they are funding.

The very existence of a squabble over terminology would hopefully cause
nanotech funders to look a little more closely at the criteria they are
using in dispersing their research funds, rather than rely on a term in
dispute.

John.S.Novak@panix.com, I · Guest

(The most excellent thing, here, is that I>m approving Jim>s messages
and he>s approving mine, while we disagree with each other. I generally
point out very explicitly when I>m speaking as a moderator. But you can
be assured that if I leave it for Jim to approve, then I>m *not*, I>m
just speaking as a reader with an opinion.)

In article <11r3r80b8cd4cd4@news.supernews.com>, JamesL@lugoj.com
says...

[quote]I>m going to establish my position first by listing some points, then
address some of John Novak>s points (way down below).

(1) The charter, such as it exists, for this group, is in J. Storrs
Hall>s call-for-votes which is archived here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio/msg/97569cbbcd386b58

(2) The "List of Big Eight Newsgroups" summary line for this group has
been for many years:
sci.nanotech Self-reproducing molecular-scale machines. (Moderated)
[/quote]
I would point out the following things:

First, the charter itself does not define the term any more precisely
than "engineering of molcular-scale machine," merely points out its
coinage by Drexler and lists some possible and admittedly disparate
topics for discussion. Among them are molecular modelling, which goes a
*long* way, and self-replicating machines, which takes in much of
biology.

[quote](6) What do Legos[R], large ball bearings, coins, and large gravel have
in common? Among other things, they are all between 1 and 10 centimeter
in size. If ball bearing developers created a term like
"centitechnology" to describe their area of research, it might be odd,
but odder (and more useless still) would be for someone to later apply
the term to uses of Legos, coin making, and gravel.
[/quote]
But on the other hand... no one has any motivation to do that, probably
becuase there>s no critical change in material behaviour at the
centimeter scale, whereas there most definitely are in the nanometer
scale.

[quote](7) In the same way that a "Centiscience" journal would be a mass of
articles of little or no overlap or use to readers in the Lego, ball
bearing, coin, and gravel communities, "Nanoscience" journals are an
inefficient collection of disjointed articles because of the nearly
useless form of categorization chosen.
[/quote]
To the extent that this is true, two things will happen:
First, uselessly categorized journals will go out of print because no
one wants them. Second, journals with savvy editors will begin to self-
select and sub-categorize for greater utility.

The IEEE puts out dozens of magazines, transactions, and proceedings on
regular bases, but they>re all still "electrical engineering" journals.

[quote](8) Notwithstanding all of the above, any post that could remotely be
considered relevant to the topics mentioned in (1) or (2) are considered
on topic here - whatever terms one wants to use. And since I may suffer
from lack of imagination at times and may overlook some tenuous link of
nanotech relevance I>ve tried to be open minded in what I approve (low
traffic levels help too!)
[/quote]
(Speaking for this sentence as a moderator, I agree-- I tend to be open-
minded when approving things.)

[quote]Now on to my replies to some of John Novak>s points:

Narrow-minded because both science and engineering are experimental
disciplines of discovery, and asserting total control over the use of
a term whose products have not even been realized in even the most
advanced research lab is hardly a vision of discovery-- it>s a false
assertion that the discoveries have already been made.

Well, physicists don>t assert total control of the word "work," but in
the narrow confines of physicists talking to physicists you>d find them
very "narrow minded" if some of their members suddenly started to use it
with a new meaning.
[/quote]
They have the benefit of decades, if not centuries of consensus on that
point, though. Nanotechnology enthusiasts and researchers, by contrast,
do not. And my background in engineering (or maybe it>s just me!) makes
me a little more tolerant of lax terminology of this sort. See also,
the great CS/SE debate-- I>ve been staunchly on every possible side of
that argument, until I came to the conclusion that my entire premise of
being able to cleanly categorize things was itself the problem.

[quote](I do wonder though: if I>m narrow-minded in using nanotechnology only
with the meaning Drexler first used, are people who dismiss that
technology as bunk broad-minded or narrow-minded? ;-) )
[/quote]
Let>s settle on "opinionated," which is one of those magic words that
can be both insulting and a badge of honor....

[quote]Futile, because very few people are going to be affected by the end
result of the breastbeating over the topic. At the end of the day,
people are going to use the terms however they want to until a
community consensus is achieved. Want to affect the consensus?
Publish or produce something important.

Drexler published a few things using the term. So did a bunch of other
authors. They even held conferences, complete with published conference
proceedings - and experimental results were presented - all using a
common understanding of nanotechnology. All done over a course of several
years with no ambiguity in the term. While it *may* be futile to fight
the new meanings, we can>t change the name of this newsgroup (though we
could abandon it I suppose) nor is it possible to go back and rewrite all
the old books and such that used Drexler>s meaning.
[/quote]
I don>t believe anyone was making such a suggestion.

[quote]The very existence of a squabble over terminology would hopefully cause
nanotech funders to look a little more closely at the criteria they are
using in dispersing their research funds, rather than rely on a term in
dispute.
[/quote]
There is that.

--
John S. Novak, III
The Humblest Man On The Net

Perry E. Metzger · Guest

John.S.Novak@panix.com, III <jsn@panix.com> writes:
[quote](6) What do Legos[R], large ball bearings, coins, and large gravel have
in common? Among other things, they are all between 1 and 10 centimeter
in size. If ball bearing developers created a term like
"centitechnology" to describe their area of research, it might be odd,
but odder (and more useless still) would be for someone to later apply
the term to uses of Legos, coin making, and gravel.

But on the other hand... no one has any motivation to do that, probably
becuase there>s no critical change in material behaviour at the
centimeter scale, whereas there most definitely are in the nanometer
scale.
[/quote]
I think the most obvious motivation for renaming everything around as
"nanotechnology" was to get funding from various government
nanotechnology initiatives and venture capitalists, and otherwise gain
increased publicity for otherwise old fields.

My test for whether a term is a good usage or not is whether it aids
or conceals the extraction of information. "Materials science",
"Synthetic organic chemistry", and other fields were easily identified
and understood by their original (pre-"lets rename ourselves to get
national nanotechnology initiative money") names, but are much more
poorly identified when they are called "Nanotechnology". On the other
hand, the field that the word was coined for has no name that is
substantially clearer or more descriptive.

Perhaps it is time to give up and come up with one (and then yet
another five years later when that name is in turn taken by people who
want to grab a share of the money). It would be nice to be able to
tell people that I>m interested in a field and have people actually
know which field it was that I was talking about.

[quote]The very existence of a squabble over terminology would hopefully cause
nanotech funders to look a little more closely at the criteria they are
using in dispersing their research funds, rather than rely on a term in
dispute.

There is that.
[/quote]
That would be an interesting result, but it also seems like an
unlikely result. The people in charge of a lot of the money are not
the folks who want the definition tightened, but rather the ones who
benefit from having it loose.

Perry

Guest

I am Dr. Wes Rosenthal in Columbus, Oh. I am on the board of a Co. called
NanoBlox. We make nanodiamonds thru explosion technology. We are currently
exploring our products use in dentistry. You>re welcome to contact me directly.

Dr. Wesley Rosenthal; Dental Director, NanoBlox. Cell # = 614-554-4995

Nitin Chopra · Guest

Refer to one of the area related to Nano/Microelectromechanical systems (NEMS/
MEMS) to seek the applicability of mechanical engineering. Actuators
based on such devices incorporate mechanics. For example deployment mechanism
of car airbags is a result of MEMS sensing.

Another mechanical engineering interests can arise from design aspects where
mechanical engineers can utilize their knowledge of mask design and layouts to
fabricate nm-scale features for device applications.

thanks
Nitin Chopra
Materials Scientist.

-----Original Message-----
From: "LASPM" <laspm.3@cetec.br>
To: sci.nanotech@nano-tek.org
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:27:08 -0000
Subject: Re: [Sci.nanotech] Nanotech in Mechanical engineering

I>m also interested in the answer of this question.
Margareth

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Sledgehammer" <satish.navaneethakrishnan@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
To: <sci.nanotech@nano-tek.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:27 PM
Subject: [Sci.nanotech] Nanotech in Mechanical engineering

[quote]
Can anyone explain is Nanotech applicable to mechanical engineering??.
I am a Equipment design engineer.

Thanx in advance.

Satish.

_______________________________________________
sci.nanotech mailing list
sci.nanotech@nano-tek.org
http://venusia.golgothe.net/mailman/listinfo/sci.nanotech

[/quote]

_______________________________________________
sci.nanotech mailing list
sci.nanotech@nano-tek.org
http://venusia.golgothe.net/mailman/listinfo/sci.nanotech

Phillip Huggan · Guest

The design space for assembler product includes a wide variety of military
technologies. I say sacrifice some performance gains and regulate MNT
very very heavily. You don>t want market forces in charge of WMD distribution,
and I can>t see why you>d want the MNT owners to be the only players of the
post-MNT economy in a distilled version of the way only a few hundred humans
have any meaningful voice in the present "market" economy.

MNT-enabled mercenaries are to be avoided.

Perry E. Metzger · Guest

Phillip Huggan <cdnprodigy@yahoo.com> writes:
[quote]The design space for assembler product includes a wide variety of military
technologies. I say sacrifice some performance gains and regulate MNT
very very heavily.
[/quote]
The military will never be subject to regulation. They get to build
whatever toys they like, in the name of "national security". In the
end, only peaceful purposes will be subject to meaningful
regulation. What such regulation will result in is lots of people who
could be cured of diseases dying, lots of toxic waste pits that could have
been cleaned remaining in the ground, lots of poverty that could have
been cured continuing, etc., in the name of an omniscient set of
regulators "studying the matter".

[quote]You don>t want market forces in charge of WMD distribution,
and I can>t see why you>d want the MNT owners to be the only players of the
post-MNT economy in a distilled version of the way only a few hundred humans
have any meaningful voice in the present "market" economy.
[/quote]
Look at the price of oil as traded on a couple of of the futures
exchanges. There are more than a few hundred people who participate
directly in setting the prices of those contracts -- it is hundreds of
thousands of people who are directly trading, and they>re responding
to the demand decisions expressed by literally billions of people. If
markets could really be manipulated the way you suggest, then why was
OPEC unable to make its price and production targets stick for almost
20 years, through the 1980s and 1990s, in spite of the fact that they
were subject to no external authority and had (in theory) full control
of most of worldwide oil production?

Going wider afield, if your belief that markets can be manipulated so
easily by the powerful was true, why did the Hunts go bankrupt trying
to corner the silver market in the late 1970s? They were as rich as
rich gets. If your belief that markets can be manipulated so easily was
true, why are the "big three" US auto makers going bankrupt, when they
have all the political capital in Washington and hundreds of billions
at their disposal, and why are companies like Toyota cleaning up?

This belief you are expressing that the world>s markets are controlled
by a couple hundred people is completely without basis in reality. Let
me bluntly call it is like it is: it is a totally absurd idea that any
educated person should make vicious fun of. One wonders who these "few
hundred" people are. Are they the Elders of Zion, one wonders, or evil
Illuminati bankers in Zurich, or both, Mr. Huggan?

Even a modest examination of real markets shows that no one is in
control but that the buying and selling decisions of billions of
people each have an impact.

By the way, if your belief that markets are all totally manipulated by
a few hundred people is true, you should be able to make a fortune
trading oil or other futures betting on the basis that these "few
hundred" people will always get their way. Even a couple percent edge
in prediction would swiftly yield billions of dollars in profits
starting from a modest starting stake. So, if you>re so smart, why
aren>t you filthy rich?

[quote]MNT-enabled mercenaries are to be avoided.
[/quote]
It is naive to believe that merely because a law is passed that the
law will do what people intend for it to do. I would love to live in
the world you do in which weapons can be effectively controlled that
way, but it is not possible. Handguns, machine guns, etc. are
completely illegal in many countries and yet routinely used in
crimes. Drugs are completely illegal in the US, and yet they are
routinely taken by prisoners in maximum security facilities. Should we
expect regulation of MNT systems to be any more successful? I doubt
it.

The intent you have in writing a law has no impact on how that law
will actually be enforced in the real world around you. Real laws are
administered by humans, not omniscient angels, and they regulate the
behavior of humans, not saints or angels.

Perry

Phillip Huggan · Guest

--0-349688647-1147661778=:30307
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> wrote: >You can build military
weaponry in any machine shop, too. It isn>t
[quote]even hard. If you>re even a pretty lame machinist you can build pretty
much any gun that is in current use. Manufacturing ammunition for your
guns is pretty straightforward as well.
[/quote]
But the sheer mass of weaponry with minimal prerequisite support
infrastructures needed, will make MNT>s unprecedented as a military lever.

[quote]How would it be avoided *with* regulation? You can>t even stop people
from doing what they want *today*.
[/quote]
MNT products are available in the library of regulatory products post-MNT.
You use MNT military technologies to reign in the little bastards.

[quote]Stocks don>t accumulate interest, compound or otherwise. Without the
stock and bond markets, you wouldn>t eat anyway -- the efficiency
gains they provide in financing are part of what allows your modern
lifestyle to exist.
[/quote]
Stocks aren>t taxed until they are cashed out. Industrial capital innovations
are taxed multiple times. Stocks are issued when a company needs to borrow
money. The ticker price is irrelevant (generally) to company fundamentals.
Same for bonds. I>m not being anti-commerce here. There is no reason for
capital markets to permit large capital players to soak up all the world>s
productivity gains (can have capital markets worship productivity gains or
consumer qualities-of-living instead of profit) . Big money and Big innovation
are not the same thing. The reason this is relevant for MNT is that you will
rapidly see MNT owners soak up all the world>s resources unless *hourly* wealth
taxes are imposed to MNT owners.

Our capital markets are more efficient than are centralized bureaucracies but
only marginally so. Both will barf trying to swallow MNT and a truly powerful
elite would be born. The only reason I don>t bother to point out these
neocapitalistic blindspots more often in the context of MNT, is that we won>t
even make it far enough to experience market-feudalism-by-MNT if we don>t deal
with death-by-MNT-weaponry first. I think many in the MNT community embrace a
very shallow school of economics.

---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
--0-349688647-1147661778=:30307
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Guest

Well fortunately we have a long time to worry about this one.

What I am interested in is the quantum nature of these machines. By
the nature of quantum mechanics, as little I understand of it, some
things are impossible to see or do. For example quantum crypto takes
advantage of the impossibility of a photon being seen both for speed
and location.

Perhaps these systems, under international treaty imposed by the
Singularity, would be able to take advantage of thier quantum nature to
make a large class of applications impossible.

Phillip Huggan · Guest

--0-838397351-1148751309=:34124
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The abstract from this report claims to provide the (circa 2004) European
national figures:
http://www.nanoforum.org/nf06~modul~showmore~folder~99999~scid~247~.html?action=longview_publication&
Registration is required and free. A better estimate might come from looking
at biotechnology patent trends by nationality.

JHeddle@gmail.com wrote:
Does anybody know where I can find figures for the amount of funding
that bionano receives in Europe, USA and Japan? I have heard that,
while overall funding is high in Japan, it lags in the bionano field.
But I have been unable to find the exact numbers.

---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2/min
with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice.

Phillip Huggan · Guest

The type of "fractal" surface area space engineering
described is used in engineering new space radiators,
probably the most important non-rocket space
technology.
There is also a new class of solar panels that use 3
(translucent) layers of different types of cells to
capture 3 different wavelengths of light. I think the
tested performance was 60% or is theoretically 60%.

--- splever@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]
I thought that the use of nanotubes or
nanotechnology enabled an
"increase in surface area".<SNIP
In the capacitor example, adding
nanotechnology "hairs" to
the capacitor enabled it to provide the performance
of a capacitor
geometrically larger.
SNIP[/quote]
I was
[quote]wondering if anyone was working doing researching to
make that
possible.
[/quote]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Guest

Very clear, thanks to all!

Phillip Huggan wrote:
[quote]The type of "fractal" surface area space engineering
described is used in engineering new space radiators,
probably the most important non-rocket space
technology.
There is also a new class of solar panels that use 3
(translucent) layers of different types of cells to
capture 3 different wavelengths of light. I think the
tested performance was 60% or is theoretically 60%.

--- splever@gmail.com wrote:

I thought that the use of nanotubes or
nanotechnology enabled an
"increase in surface area".<SNIP
In the capacitor example, adding
nanotechnology "hairs" to
the capacitor enabled it to provide the performance
of a capacitor
geometrically larger.
SNIP
I was
wondering if anyone was working doing researching to
make that
possible.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com[/quote]

Phillip Huggan · Guest

If you believe in the concept of "uploading" minds
(which I don>t), then Tipler>s closed universe
endstate may be feasible. Most recent observation
point to an open universe. Dyson has postulated life
of some sort may be able to survive indefinitely via
harnessing vacuum quantum fluctuations.
Another one of Tipler>s postulations may hold the key
to immortality: A Time Machine. MNT replicator probes
may one day be able to transform a galaxy sized object
into a massive Time Machine. A viable suspension
technology would be a trivial feat, given the
resources of a Time Machine>s own future light-cone.

I>m pessimistic quantum computers will get past about
150 q-bits any time soon (decoherence may not be
avoidable beyond a certain quatum computer size). If
you believe in uploading, a large enough quantum
computer would work. Probably this would require an
even more powerful class of technologies than what is
presently known as nanotechnology.

--- Progress City <progresscity@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
Frank Tipler envisions a time when there will be
infinite computation
power, just before the "big crunch", and that this
could be used for
some kind of universal resurrection of everyone who
ever lived.

Could Nanotechnology be used to create some kind of
quantum computer
that would produce the same results?
[/quote]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Phillip Huggan · Guest

--0-366164615-1161311765=:32314
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Sure, throwing tens of billions of dollars to develop new SPM tool-tip
geometries and techniques might produce an assembler in ten years. Or maybe
not.
Manhattan Project occured in the context of World War II. Apollo occured in
the context to better the Soviets.
I don>t know about ending all poverty. That has been possible without MNT
since the Green Revolutions in the 70>s, but those with capital haven>t ended
poverty.
Eliminating all disease and facilitating immortality is even more
speculative, but certainly MNT could greatly bolster the number of researchers
working in various biotechnology/medicine fields.
Perhaps part of the problem is that those controlling the public purse are
faced with a bewildering array of "Next-Manhattans" needing funding. Recently
I>ve read about the need for a Manhattan Project style commitment to: develop
alternative energy resources, combat bioterror, build a Space Elevator, employ
all former Soviet nuclear scientists, fund anti-anging research, advance
desalination technologies, build an AI, learn about climate change processes,
build a Lunar Base....you can>t expect Ministers of Industry to separate the
wheat from the chaff.

the.sandwich.king@gmail.com wrote:
Could massive funding, perhaps on the scale of the Manhattan project,
or Apollo program, bring us the assembler in a decade or so?

If so, why aren>t we doing more to speed up its development?

This one device could end poverty, eliminate all disease and provide
near immortality to all. Why isn>t the government taking it seriously?

You would think that with over two decades of research, we>d be there
by now, right?

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2/min or less.
--0-366164615-1161311765=:32314
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<div>Sure, throwing tens of billions of dollars to develop new SPM tool-tip
geometries and techniques might produce an assembler in ten years.  Or
maybe not.</div> <div>Manhattan Project occured in the context of World War
II.  Apollo occured in the context to better the Soviets.</div> <div>I
don>t know about ending all poverty.  That has been possible without MNT
since the Green Revolutions in the 70>s, but those with capital haven>t ended
poverty.</div> <div>Eliminating all disease and facilitating immortality is
even more speculative, but certainly MNT could greatly bolster the number
of researchers working in various biotechnology/medicine fields.</div>
<div>Perhaps part of the problem is that those controlling the public purse are
faced with a bewildering array of "Next-Manhattans" needing funding. 
Recently I>ve read about the need for a Manhattan Project style commitment to:
develop alternative energy resources, combat bioterror, build a
Space Elevator, employ all former Soviet nuclear scientists, fund anti-anging
research, advance desalination technologies, build an AI, learn about climate
change processes, build a Lunar Base....you can>t expect Ministers of Industry
to separate the wheat from the chaff.</div>
<div><BR><BR><B><I>the.sandwich.king@gmail.com</I></B> wrote:</div>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Could massive funding, perhaps on the scale of
the Manhattan project,<BR>or Apollo program, bring us the assembler in a decade
or so?<BR><BR>If so, why aren>t we doing more to speed up its
development?<BR><BR>This one device could end poverty, eliminate all disease
and provide<BR>near immortality to all. Why isn>t the government taking it
seriously?<BR><BR>You would think that with over two decades of research, we>d
be there<BR>by now, right?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p>
<hr size=1>Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. <a
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman1/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com">Make
PC-to-Phone Calls</a> to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2/min or less.
--0-366164615-1161311765=:32314--

Phillip Huggan · Guest

--0-837569289-1161571515=:85763
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

This is a decent summary of the field to date as of February 2006:
http://www.ehponline.org/realfiles/members/2005/8284/8284.html

My hunch is that 2-7 nm sized quantum dot crystals are too small to pose an
inhalation danger. Just a hunch though.

---------------------------------
All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
--0-837569289-1161571515=:85763
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <div>This is a decent summary of the field to
date as of February 2006:</div> <div><A
href="http://www.ehponline.org/realfiles/members/2005/8284/8284.html">http://www.ehponline.org/realfiles/members/2005/8284/8284.html</A></div>
<div> </div> <div>My hunch is that 2-7 nm sized quantum dot crystals are
too small to pose an inhalation danger.  Just a hunch
though.</div></BLOCKQUOTE><p>
<hr size=1><a
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43256/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta">
All-new Yahoo! Mail </a>- Fire up a more powerful email and get things done
faster.
--0-837569289-1161571515=:85763--


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Nanotechnology Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 9 of 11