Slashdot Mirror


Swarms Of Tiny Robots To Monitor Water Pollution

savi writes "The University of Southern California School of Engineering has received a research grant to create swarms of microscopic robots to monitor potentially dangerous microorganisms in the ocean. Basically, nanoscale robots with electrical and mechanical components that can propel themselves, send signals, and do basic computations. "

182 comments

  1. But! by 1010011010 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will the nanoprobes monitor the water supply for pollution by nanoprobes? Huh? Huh?

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    1. Re:But! by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Yes, and then when they start to break, we will dump larger nanoprobes in to clean the smaller ones up. And when those break, we will have to dump in larger MICRO-probes to recover the broken nanoprobes. And then a fish will eat the micro-probes, get sick and die, and a larger fish will eat that dead fish and get sick and die as well. This will continue untill we've filled the ocean with dead fish and broken robots, and we will once again realize that sometimes technology causes more problems than it solves.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:But! by jmccay · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Will they be able to tell when they get eaten in the food chain? We could end up eating a few of these when we eat tuna of some other fish in the ocean's food chain. I am more concerned abouot that, and the side effect of sending multiple signals through the ocean. We are not even complete sure sonar does mess with the the navigation of ocean creatures.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    3. Re:But! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CmdrTaco realised that a long time ago. When he couldn't stand the trolls anymore, he solved his problem by broking the code. For some obvious reasons, that perpetueted even more crapflooding. So Taco managed to mess up the code to the point to render slashcode useless. Did it stop trolls from wrecking havoc on slashdot? Juge it yourself by the quality of news stories and comments lately. Taco's stupidity sure did put an end to legitimate comments.

    4. Re:But! by Geeyzus · · Score: 1

      Will the nanoprobes monitor the water supply for pollution by nanoprobes?

      Nope, but they are breeding strains of insects that eat the nanoprobes. But what about the insects? Well...

      ....5 minutes later....

      ...and the beauty is, the giant gorillas all freeze to death in the winter!

      Mark

    5. Re:But! by markfive · · Score: 3, Funny

      Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
      Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're
      overrun by lizards?
      Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese
      needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
      Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
      Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous
      type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
      Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
      Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around,
      the gorillas simply freeze to death.

    6. Re:But! by cookie_cutter · · Score: 1
      We are not even complete sure sonar does mess with the the navigation of ocean creatures.

      Actually, they're pretty sure it does.

    7. Re:But! by flewp · · Score: 1

      Wow... weird.... Very rarely, and I mean VERY rarely I catch a Simpson's episode that I have never seen, and what do you know? This one just happened to be on. That's really not the weird part though. The weird part is that I was able to recite it exactly as you just said.... Actually, I don't know if that's weird, scary, or both.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    8. Re:But! by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 1

      Havent seen this link posted in a while, and its sort of relevant...

      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.h tm l

    9. Re:But! by pistaugh · · Score: 1

      What happens when people start drinking these nanoprobes. I don't want anyone monitoring the pollution I have inside me. Christ, just what I put in my body last night will get me in plenty of trouble.

  2. First post by DivineOb · · Score: -1

    Quicker than most... bigger dick too...

    --

    I must burn in hell, suffer and pay for my sins
    But Gods the one who's losing, Satan always wins!

  3. FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    YEAH

  4. How long .. by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .. until we have to send out the second swarm to monitor for the pollution levels the first swarm cause? ;)

    Yeah, it might sound like a troll, but it's not! Honestly, how do we know these robots won't affect the ecology of the water they are placed in?

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
    1. Re:How long .. by joshjs · · Score: 1

      The robots will undoubtedly affect the environment. If the engineer(-ing students?) involved do their job correctly, though, they'll minimize potential harmful impact.

      Right?

    2. Re:How long .. by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      We hope. Although, I think what usually happens is that you discover /what/ you're affecting long after the collateral-damage studies are done, and consequently, after the damage has been done. Unfortunately, I think we only discover /what/ we're doing after we've done it. This is one of the main prinicipals of technology: it is impossible to predict how they will affect the system you live in, and new technologies ALWAYS affect a system (be it physical or social) in a way that is, to varying degrees, different than your best predictions.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re:How long .. by British · · Score: 2

      Remember, those denying the existence of nanorobots might actually be nanorobots themselves.

    4. Re:How long .. by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > The robots will undoubtedly affect the environment. If the engineer(-ing students?) involved do their job correctly, though, they'll minimize potential harmful impact.

      Oh, sure ;-)

    5. Re:How long .. by gspeare · · Score: 0

      A long time, given that the group involved hasn't even built a prototype of these things yet. This is more like a grant for looking into basic techniques which might one day form the foundation for methods used to build nanorobots. By the time they are close to building one, Microsoft will have taken over funding. The first MS-Nanobot will have 8 gig of RAM, a 20 terabyte HD, fully integrated wireless networking, GPS, sound, and voice recognition input...and be 12 inches in diameter. :)

    6. Re:How long .. by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      Well, I would hope that this university would test this stuff before actually doing it, our little minds dont really know everything that they have been dealing with, but im sure the topic has come up at least once as they were talking about all this..

      If it does happen, I have full faith that they would have tested that as much as they could before trying it. As with anything, you can't test it perfectly until you try..

    7. Re:How long .. by Grab · · Score: 2

      Consider the water they are placed in. Or more accurately, consider the pollution. Dioxins, PCBs, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, oil spills, raw sewage, etc... And then consider the nanobots.

      Basically, if we're sticking these things in the water then it's already polluted enough that it doesn't _have_ an ecology!

      Grab.

  5. frost p1ss! by The+Turd+Report · · Score: -1

    nice and cold. Ouch!

  6. Drink the Robots? by gilly_gize · · Score: 5, Funny

    So can you end up drinking the microscopic robots? Couldn't this raise as much protest as floride in the water? (We must protect our precious bodily fluids!)

    Oh well, I suppose I don't have enough iron in my diet anyhow...

    1. Re:Drink the Robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how often you'll be drinking sea water 10 years from now, which is when they're hoping they might have something ready.

    2. Re:Drink the Robots? by perelgut · · Score: 1
      What makes you think that these robots are going to be made out of iron? They'll more likely be carbon-based life-forms.


      The crude, early versions will be built using something like the NanoManipulator already on the market for less than some fools pay for an SUV (see http://www.3rdtech.com/NanoManipulator.htm). The next generation will probably use a very simplistic RNA/DNA programming structure, we're pretty close to that already.

    3. Re:Drink the Robots? by wildwood · · Score: 1

      So can you end up drinking the microscopic robots?

      Mmmm, crunchy!

      --
      normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
    4. Re:Drink the Robots? by slittle · · Score: 1

      I'd like to listen in on what they have to say after drinking some of them. I mean, the 'pollution' level in my intestines has to be pretty severe...

      --
      Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
  7. Cluster by TheAlmightyQ · · Score: -1, Redundant

    Will they make a beowolf cluster of these?

    --
    I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
  8. Fish food by dotderf · · Score: 1

    What happens when the real fish start going after these things?

  9. Potential Problems by mosch · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Is it just me, or does monitoring pollution by dumping large amounts of microscopic robots into the pollution seem really rediculous? What happens if a person consumes these robots? What happens to animals if it turns out that these robots build up in some part of their body?

    This is fascinating, but I'd prefer to see these studies being done in tanks, not in the ocean. This smells a lot like somebody solving a problem by creating a different one.

    1. Re:Potential Problems by einer · · Score: 1

      These robots join to become VOLTRON... At which point they (it) exit(s) the body in the same manner as the spider nasty in Alien.

      Subject verb agreement can be a pain.

    2. Re:Potential Problems by Molina+the+Bofh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe these nanobots will be in a diminute quantity that they'll make absolutely no difference in the tons and tons of water the oceans have.

      You know those tracking devices that biologists attach to some wild animals, like little metal rings in the birds leg, that help cientists identify migration patterns ? Some even transmit radio waves. Using the same logic, you could also say that attaching identifiers to wild birds would make extra weight and thus disturb their flight. Or would harm the predators who eat those birds. Well, it makes as much difference for them as a billion of nanobots would make to an ocean.

      Besides, these nanobots apparently so harmless that, according to the article: "I don't think these robots will be confined to the ocean. We will eventually make robots to hunt down pathogens or repair cells in the human body".

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think blood from a live person would me more sensitive to impurities than an ocean.

      --

      -
      Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
    3. Re:Potential Problems by Grab · · Score: 2

      If you go drinking that water, you've got more problems than just the nanobots!

      Like Weil's Disease from the raw sewage, chloracne from the dioxins, breakdown of the central nervous system from the mercury, poisoning from the oil spills...

      Basically, you're not going to be drinking it! And anything that's living in there (if anything can!) is not going to form part of our food chain, and likely not part of any animal's food chain either.

      Grab.

  10. Great. by wo1verin3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just great.

    I give it two weeks before they get in to all the systems, shut down our life support and start calling us ugly bags of mostly water.

    BAH. Where is Wil Wheaton now to save us?

    1. Re:Great. by AnalogBoy · · Score: 2

      Nah. They'd just multiply using the minerals available in the water.

      They would then infiltrate our cities water supplies. Through self-modification they would be able to integrate themselves into our brains. They would then take over the cities, and the states, then finally the planet. It would happen so slowly, but so quickly, nobody would notice. You see, its all part of my tremendously ingeneous plan to take over the world! (hides mouse ears)

      narf.

      (To answer, Wil is lurking. Remember, he reads slashdot too. Hi Wil!)

    2. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      You'd better hope he hasn't found other work. Ok, so there's a really, really good chance we're saved.

    3. Re:Great. by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      Your post kinda reminded me of this quote:

      "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

      There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

      Douglas Adams

  11. IMPORTANT - The Linux GAY Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

    What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

    • Linus Torvalds is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
    • Richard M. Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
    • Alan Cox is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

    I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

    Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail, which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

    As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

    And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

    Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

    'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

    Is this why you were touching your penis in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

    We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their postings and publishing them en masse to further his twisted and manipulative journalistic agenda.

    Sick, disgusting antichristian perverts, the lot of them.

    In addition, many of the Linux distributions (a 'distribution' is the most common way to spread the faggots' wares) are run by faggot groups. The Slackware distro is named after the 'Slack-wear' fags wear to allow easy access to the anus for sexual purposes. Furthermore, Slackware is a close anagram of claw arse, a reference to the homosexual practise of anal fisting. The Mandrake product is run by a group of French faggot satanists, and is named after the faggot nickname for the vibrator. It was also chosen because it is an anagram for dark amen and ram naked, which is what they do.

    Another 'distro,' (abbrieviated as such because it sounds a bit like 'Disco,' which is where homosexuals preyed on young boys in the 1970s), is Debian, an anagram of in a bed, which could be considered innocent enough (after all, a bed is both where we sleep and pray), until we realise what other names Debian uses to describe their foul wares. 'Woody' is obvious enough, being a term for the erect male penis, glistening with pre-cum. But far sicker is the phrase 'Frozen Potato' that they use. This filthy term, again found in the secret homosexual 'Sauce Code,' refers to the solo homosexual practice of defecating into a clear polythene bag, shaping the turd into a crude approximation of the male phallus, then leaving it in the freezer overnight until it becomes solid. The practitioner then proceeds to push the frozen 'potato' up his own rectum, squeezing it in and out until his tight young balls erupt in a screaming orgasm.

    And Red Hat is secret homo slang for the tip of a penis that is soaked in blood from a freshly violated underage ringpiece.

    The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry! For example, the 'supermount' tool was devised to allow deeper penetration, which is good for fags because it gives more pressure on the prostate gland. 'Automount' is used, on the other hand, because Linux users are all fat and gay, and need to mount each other automatically.

    The depths of their depravity can be seen in their use of 'mount points.' These are, plainly speaking, the different points of penetration. The main one is obviously /anus, but there are others. Militant fags even say 'there is no /opt mount point' because for these dirty perverts faggotry is not optional but a way of life.

    More evidence is in the fact that Linux users say how much they love `man`, even going so far as to say that all new Linux users (who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda) should try out `man`. In no other system do users boast of their frequent recourse to a man.

    Other areas of the system also show Linux's inherit gayness. For example, people are often told of the 'FAQ,' but how many innocent heterosexual Windows users know what this actually means. The answer is shocking: Faggot Anal Quest: the voyage of discovery for newly converted fags!

    Even the title 'Slashdot' originally referred to a homosexual practice. Slashdot of course refers to the popular gay practice of blood-letting. The Slashbots, of course are those super-zealous homosexuals who take this perversion to its extreme by ripping open their anuses, as seen on the site most popular with Slashdot users, the depraved work of Satan, http://www.eff.org/.

    The editors of Slashdot also have homosexual names: 'Hemos' is obvious in itself, being one vowel away from 'Homos.' But even more sickening is 'Commander Taco' which sounds a bit like 'Commode in Taco,' filthy gay slang for a pair of spreadeagled buttocks that are caked with excrement. (The best form of lubrication, they insist.) Sometimes, these 'Taco Commodes' have special 'Salsa Sauce' (blood from a ruptured rectum) and 'Cheese' (rancid flakes of penis discharge) toppings. And to make it even worse, Slashdot runs on Apache!

    The Apache server, whose use among fags is as prevalent as AIDS, is named after homosexual activity -- as everyone knows, popular faggot band, the Village People, featured an Apache Indian, and it is for him that this gay program is named.

    And that's not forgetting the use of patches in the Linux fag world -- patches are used to make the anus accessible for repeated anal sex even after its rupture by a session of fisting.

    To summarise: Linux is gay. 'Slash -- Dot' is the graphical description of the space between a young boy's scrotum and anus. And BeOS is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers.'

    FEEDBACK

    What worries me is how much you know about what gay people do. I'm scared I actually read this whole thing. I think this post is a good example of the negative effects of Internet usage on people. This person obviously has no social life anymore and had to result to writing something as stupid as this. And actually take the time to do it too. Although... I think it was satire.. blah.. it's early. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Well, the only reason I know all about this is because I had the misfortune to read the Linux 'Sauce code' once. Although publicised as the computer code needed to get Linux up and running on a computer (and haven't you always been worried about the phrase 'Monolithic Kernel'?), this foul document is actually a detailed and graphic description of every conceivable degrading perversion known to the human race, as well as a few of the major animal species. It has shocked and disturbed me, to the point of needing to shock and disturb the common man to warn them of the impending homo-calypse which threatens to engulf our planet.

    You must work for the government. Trying to post the most obscene stuff in hopes that slashdot won't be able to continue or something, due to legal woes. If i ever see your ugly face, i'm going to stick my fireplace poker up your ass, after it's nice and hot, to weld shut that nasty gaping hole of yours. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Doesn't it give you a hard-on to imagine your thick strong poker ramming it's way up my most sacred of sphincters? You're beyond help, my friend, as the only thing you can imagine is the foul penetrative violation of another man. Are you sure you're not Eric Raymond? The government, being populated by limp-wristed liberals, could never stem the sickening tide of homosexual child molesting Linux advocacy. Hell, they've given NAMBLA free reign for years!

    you really should post this logged in. i wish i could remember jebus's password, cuz i'd give it to you. -- mighty jebus, Slashdot

    Thank you for your kind words of support. However, this document shall only ever be posted anonymously. This is because the 'Open Sauce' movement is a sham, proposing homoerotic cults of hero worshipping in the name of freedom. I speak for the common man. For any man who prefers the warm, enveloping velvet folds of a woman's vagina to the tight puckered ringpiece of a child. These men, being common, decent folk, don't have a say in the political hypocrisy that is Slashdot culture. I am the unknown liberator.

    ROLF LAMO i hate linux FAGGOTS -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    We shouldn't hate them, we should pity them for the misguided fools they are... Fanatical Linux zeal-outs need to be herded into camps for re-education and subsequent rehabilitation into normal heterosexual society. This re-education shall be achieved by forcing them to watch repeats of Baywatch until the very mention of Pamela Anderson causes them to fill their pants with healthy heterosexual jism.

    Actually, that's not at all how scrotal inflation works. I understand it involves injecting sterile saline solution into the scrotum. I've never tried this, but you can read how to do it safely in case you're interested. (Before you moderate this down, ask yourself honestly -- who are the real crazies -- people who do scrotal inflation, or people who pay $1000+ for a game console?) -- double_h, Slashdot

    Well, it just goes to show that even the holy Linux 'sauce code' is riddled with bugs that need fixing. (The irony of Jon Katz not even being able to inflate his scrotum correctly has not been lost on me.) The Linux pervert elite already acknowledge this, with their queer slogan: 'Given enough arms, all rectums are shallow.' And anyway, the PS2 sucks major cock and isn't worth the money. Intellivision forever!

    dude did u used to post on msnbc's nt bulletin board now that u are doing anti-gay posts u also need to start in with anti-black stuff too c u in church -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    For one thing, whilst Linux is a cavalcade of queer propaganda masquerading as the future of computing, NT is used by people who think nothing better of encasing their genitals in quick setting plaster then going to see a really dirty porno film, enjoying the restriction enforced onto them. Remember, a wasted arousal is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church. Clearly, the only god-fearing Christian operating system in existence is CP/M -- The Christian Program Monitor. All computer users should immediately ask their local pastor to install this fine OS onto their systems. It is the only route to salvation.

    Secondly, this message is for every man. Computers know no colour. Not only that, but one of the finest websites in the world is maintained by a Black Man . Now fuck off you racist donkey felcher.

    And don't forget that slashdot was written in Perl, which is just too close to 'Pearl Necklace' for comfort.... oh wait; that's something all you heterosexuals do.... I can't help but wonder how much faster the trolls could do First-Posts on this site if it were redone in PHP... I could hand-type dynamic HTML pages faster than Perl can do them. -- phee, Slashdot

    Although there is nothing unholy about the fine heterosexual act of ejaculating between a woman's breasts, squirting one's load up towards her neck and chin area, it should be noted that Perl (standing for Pansies Entering Rectums Locally) is also close to 'Pearl Monocle,' 'Pearl Nosering,' and the ubiquitous 'Pearl Enema.'

    One scary thing about Perl is that it contains hidden homosexual messages. Take the following code: LWP::Simple -- It looks innocuous enough, doesn't it? But look at the line closely: There are two colons next to each other! As Larry 'Balls to the' Wall would openly admit in the Perl Documentation, Perl was designed from the ground up to indoctrinate it's programmers into performing unnatural sexual acts -- having two colons so closely together is clearly a reference to the perverse sickening act of 'colon kissing,' whereby two homosexual queers spread their buttocks wide, pressing their filthy torn sphincters together. They then share small round objects like marbles or golfballs by passing them from one rectum to another using muscle contraction alone. This is also referred to in programming 'circles' as 'Parameter Passing.'

    And PHP stands for Perverted Homosexual Penetration. Didn't you know?

    Thank you for your valuable input on this. I am sure you will be never forgotten. BTW: Did I mention that this could be useful in terraforming Mars? Mars rulaa. -- Eimernase, Slashdot

    Well, I don't know about terraforming Mars, but I do know that homosexual Linux Advocates have been probing Uranus for years.

    That's inspiring. Keep up the good work, AC. May God in his wisdom grant you the strength to bring the plain honest truth to this community, and make it pure again. Yours, Cerberus. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    *sniff* That brings a tear to my eye. Thank you once more for your kind support. I have taken faith in the knowledge that I am doing the Good Lord's work, but it is encouraging to know that I am helping out the common man here.

    However, I should be cautious about revealing your name 'Cerberus' on such a filthy den of depravity as Slashdot. It is a well known fact that the 'Kerberos' documentation from Microsoft is a detailed manual describing, in intimate, exacting detail, how to sexually penetrate a variety of unwilling canine animals; be they domesticated, wild, or mythical. Slashdot posters have taken great pleasure in illegally spreading this documentation far and wide, treating it as an 'extension' to the Linux 'Sauce Code,' for the sake of 'interoperability.' (The slang term they use for nonconsensual intercourse -- their favourite kind.)

    In fact, sick twisted Linux deviants are known to have LAN parties, (Love of Anal Naughtiness, needless to say.), wherein they entice a stray dog, known as the 'Samba Mount,' into their homes. Up to four of these filth-sodden blasphemers against nature take turns to plunge their erect, throbbing, uncircumcised members, conkers-deep, into the rectum, mouth, and other fleshy orifices of the poor animal. Eventually, the 'Samba Mount' collapses due to 'overload,' and needs to be 'rebooted.' (i.e., kicked out into the street, and left to fend for itself.) Many Linux users boast about their 'uptime' in such situations.

    Inspiring stuff! If only all trolls were this quality! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    If only indeed. You can help our brave cause by moderating this message up as often as possible. I recommend '+1, Underrated,' as that will protect your precious Karma in Metamoderation. Only then can we break through the glass ceiling of Homosexual Slashdot Culture. Is it any wonder that the new version of Slashcode has been christened 'Bender'???

    If we can get just one of these postings up to at least '+1,' then it will be archived forever! Others will learn of our struggle, and join with us in our battle for freedom!

    It's pathetic you've spent so much time writing this. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    I am compelled to document the foulness and carnal depravity that is Linux, in order that we may prepare ourselves for the great holy war that is to follow. It is my solemn duty to peel back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.

    As with any great open-source project, you need someone asking this question, so I'll do it. When the hell is version 2.0 going to be ready?!?! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    I could make an arrogant, childish comment along the lines of 'Every time someone asks for 2.0, I won't release it for another 24 hours,' but the truth of the matter is that I'm quite nervous of releasing a 'number two,' as I can guarantee some filthy shit-slurping Linux pervert would want to suck it straight out of my anus before I've even had chance to wipe.

    I desperately want to suck your monolithic kernel, you sexy hunk, you. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    I sincerely hope you're Natalie Portman.

    Dude, nothing on slashdot larger than 3 paragraphs is worth reading. Try to distill the message, whatever it was, and maybe I'll read it. As it is, I have to much open source software to write to waste even 10 seconds of precious time. 10 seconds is all its gonna take M$ to whoop Linux's ass. Vigilence is the price of Free (as in libre -- from the fine, frou frou French language) Software. Hack on fellow geeks, and remember: Friday is Bouillabaisse day except for heathens who do not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Those godless, oil drench, bearded sexist clowns can pull grits from their pantaloons (another fine, fine French word) and eat that. Anyway, try to keep your message focused and concise. For concision is the soul of derision. Way. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    What the fuck?

    I've read your gay conspiracy post version 1.3.0 and I must say I'm impressed. In particular, I appreciate how you have managed to squeeze in a healthy dose of the latent homosexuality you gay-bashing homos tend to be full of. Thank you again. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Well bugger me!

    ooooh honey. how insecure are you!!! wann a little massage from deare bruci. love you -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Fuck right off!

    IMPORTANT: This message needs to be heard (Not HURD, which is an acronym for 'Huge Unclean Rectal Dilator') across the whole community, so it has been released into the Public Domain. You know, that licence that we all had before those homoerotic crypto-fascists came out with the GPL (Gay Penetration License) that is no more than an excuse to see who's got the biggest feces-encrusted cock. I would have put this up on Freshmeat, but that name is known to be a euphemism for the tight rump of a young boy.

    Come to think of it, the whole concept of 'Source Control' unnerves me, because it sounds a bit like 'Sauce Control,' which is a description of the homosexual practice of holding the base of the cock shaft tightly upon the point of ejaculation, thus causing a build up of semenal fluid that is only released upon entry into an incision made into the base of the receiver's scrotum. And 'Open Sauce' is the act of ejaculating into another mans face or perhaps a biscuit to be shared later. Obviously, 'Closed Sauce' is the only Christian thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that it is what Cathedrals are all about.

    Contributors: (although not to the eternal game of 'soggy biscuit' that open 'sauce' development has become) Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, phee, Anonymous Coward, mighty jebus, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, double_h, Anonymous Coward, Eimernase, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward. Further contributions are welcome.

    Current changes: This version sent to FreeWIPO by 'Bring BackATV' as plain text. Reformatted everything, added all links back in (that we could match from the previous version), many new ones (Slashbot bait links). Even more spelling fixed. Who wrote this thing, CmdrTaco himself?

    Previous changes: Yet more changes added. Spelling fixed. Feedback added. Explanation of 'distro' system. 'Mount Point' syntax described. More filth regarding `man` and Slashdot. Yet more fucking spelling fixed. 'Fetchmail' uncovered further. More Slashbot baiting. Apache exposed. Distribution licence at foot of document.

    ANUX -- A full Linux distribution... Up your ass!

    1. Re:IMPORTANT - The Linux GAY Conspiracy by trollercoaster · · Score: -1

      The worst terrorist attack in recorded history occurred four months ago, and now we're involved in a WAR against Islam and you people have the gall to be discussing The Linux GAY Conspiracy???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!

      The bodies of the thousands of innocent civilians who died (and will die) in these unprecedented events could give a good god damn about The Linux GAY Conspiracy, your childish Lego models, your nerf toy guns and whining about the lack of a "fun" workplace, your Everquest/Diablo/D&D fixation, the latest Cowboy Bebop rerun, or any of the other ways you are "getting on with your life" (here's a hint: watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with your life"). The souls of the victims are watching in horror as you people squander your finite, precious time on this earth playing video games!

      You people disgust me!

      --

      Slashdot, come for the goatse, stay for the trolls.

  12. Oh, great... by koreth · · Score: 3, Funny

    And I thought lead in the water supply was bad enough. Now I have to have my water tested for excessive robot levels.

  13. And that's why... by cliffy2000 · · Score: 1

    I've got a water filter. I don't want these little metal bugs swimming around in my intestines.

    1. Re:And that's why... by bje2 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that your Brita© water filter wouldn't be good enough to stop any "nano-robots"...you'd probably need some sort of industrial strength super-filter for that...

      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    2. Re:And that's why... by Christianfreak · · Score: 2

      Hehe, yeah just imagine if one got into some geeks stomach.

      "Sir robot 1,344,533 is reporting that the whole ocean has turned to Mountain Dew!"

    3. Re:And that's why... by rmadmin · · Score: 1

      Why don't you put a 50oz magnet next to your filter.. or magnatize the filter.. that should catch a few of them =p

    4. Re:And that's why... by br0ck · · Score: 1

      If a magnetized aircraft carrier cruises through, will it take all of them with it? ;)

      They're building these with gold, silver and organic molecules, so the magnet idea probably wouldn't work. It seems that the advantages to quickly finding toxins would outweigh any of these concerns. Even better would be if the nanobots destroyed the toxins and then rapidly degraded into trace elements. The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson does a great job at describing a world where diseases and toxins have been eliminated through nanotechnology.

    5. Re:And that's why... by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      Yes, I remember The Diamond Age. Diseases and toxins were eliminated to be replaced by hostile nanites.

      Frankly, I prefer diseases. At least we know how to handle most of them.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    6. Re:And that's why... by Grab · · Score: 2

      Really? When did this happen?

      Most infectious diseases are controlled by antibiotics, but many are now resistant. What we've been doing to diseases is roughly like spraying the swamps with DDT - it works to start with, but eventually the bugs become resistant and then you're screwed and need to find something else. We're rapidly approaching the "screwed" state in infectious diseases, without much in the way of ideas when everything's resistant to the latest *cillin.

      Then there's cancer, where the only cure so far is either to hit the patient's body with something incredibly toxic and hope it kills the cancer before it kills the patient, or to cut it out and pray to God you got it all.

      Then there's congenital disorders, which are utterly unsolved.

      The best we can say for diseases is that we understand the symptoms - they're the devil we know. Are you happy with that status quo, or would you rather investigate the devil we won't know, just in case he's going to screw you over less?

      Grab.

  14. Am I missing something? by adlam.bor · · Score: 0

    What's the range going to be on one of those nanobots? I can see how making it microscopic would be great to minimize disruption of ecosystems (although they'll probably get eaten in hoardes anyway), but I could also see how it could be counterproductive if you'd need billyuns and billyuns of them to get any sort of reasonable reading...

  15. swarms of tiny mods to monitor slashdot pollution by neal+n+bob · · Score: -1

    this can go nowhere good - is no one worried about super-intelligent dolphins taking control of these robots?

  16. Re:First PRESTZEL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic


    Bush makes light of pretzel scare

    US President George W Bush said he felt "great" on Monday, despite
    having fainted and fallen from a couch after choking on a pretzel over the weekend.

    Sporting an angry red bruise on his cheek, the president joked with reporters
    about the incident as he left the White House on a two-day tour of the Mid-West.

    "My mother always said when you're eating pretzels, chew before you swallow," he said before boarding a helicopter to Illinois.

    The president's doctor said Mr Bush had been feeling unwell for a couple of
    days, and he lost consciousness for a short time when his heart rate slowed
    after he choked on the salty snack.

    He slightly cut his face and bruised his lip when he fell to the floor.

    Business as usual

    Mr Bush is considered extremely healthy for a man in his 50s and has gone
    ahead with his planned trip to Illinois, Missouri and Louisiana.

    He told reporters that he only realised what had happened when he looked up
    to see his two dogs, Barney and Spot, looking down at him.

    "I hit the deck and woke up and there were Barney and Spot showing a lot
    of concern," he said.

  17. Christian geek girl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    God... I'm in love with one and she won't have sex.

    1. Re:Christian geek girl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      just RAPE her, you sissy

    2. Re:Christian geek girl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      No! She's too sweet. I've got to convince her somehow that the god wants her to have sex with me.

    3. Re:Christian geek girl by DivineOb · · Score: -1

      Perhaps you should take some lessons from Dave Koresh... from I what I understand he got frisky with quite a large number of 'believers', many under 18 as well...

      --

      I must burn in hell, suffer and pay for my sins
      But Gods the one who's losing, Satan always wins!

    4. Re:Christian geek girl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Just say the bible says so. If she asks where, just tell her somewhere in the middle. or The troll above has a good solution too.

  18. and hopefully by kraada · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this will be the first step towards nanobots inside the human body. If these things can monitor pollutant rate, then they can be easily modified to check for oxygen level in the blood, nutrient level, etc. If they can start moving things around, maybe they can fix internal damage . . .
    There's lots of great application for this . . . if it starts by fixing pollution, cool, but I'm going to continue to look ahead to all of the great thigns that this can lead to.
    K

    1. Re:and hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Congratulations on the first non-paranoid-luddite post!

    2. Re:and hopefully by einer · · Score: 1

      Goodbye Viagra, Hello Nanorect! .... erm....

    3. Re:and hopefully by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      If they can start moving things around, maybe they can fix internal damage

      If they can start moving things around, maybe they can cause internal damage.

      Until the first international treaty on nanowarfare at least, after that the major counties will just secretly stockpile them.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:and hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want some that live happily in my gal bladder and when a stone starts to form they break it up and get it outta there.

      Then again, I'm prolly biased because I have to go have the thing surgically removed and there is nothing else wrong with it. Sigh.

    5. Re:and hopefully by speederaser · · Score: 1
      ... all of the great thigns that this can lead to.

      ...Like the perfect terrorist weapon! Nanobots that eat away the nerves to your heart, lungs, and eyes, destroy your immune system, inject poison in just the right spot! And there's a bonus (for the terrorist) - when the host dies they don't die. They just jump into the air currents and float to the next victim. Once turned loose they are unstoppable ... except by other nanobots.

      In the nanobot future, newborns must be immediately injected with protector nanobots, or they suffer a slow agonizing death. Nanobots are everywhere. Good 'bots and bad 'bots. No one on earth is alive that doesn't have a nanobot war raging inside. Self-replicating, stealing minerals and metals from the bloodstream to reproduce and fight. Everyone gobbles vitamins like candy, hoping that some of the precious minerals will get past the bots to feed their ravaged, anemic bodies.

      How will it start? By some terrorist walking to the beach in his home country and dumping a bucket of nanobots into the ocean. Swimming nanobots pre-programmed to navigate by GPS to the target country. Once there they will reproduce quietly for years, staying within the bounds of the country using GPS, carefully doing no damage, staying out of sight, until... H-hour arrives and the attack begins!

      Will we survive that first attack?

      Do we really understand what we're doing here?

    6. Re:and hopefully by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      Every really nasty weapon ever used was first studied, tested, and perfected by the so-called "civilized" nations of the earth.
      Chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, thermite plasma, napalm, depleted uranium, cluster bombs, you name it.

      I see no reason to suspect that terrorists will be the first to use nano-weapons. No, someone else will make it, and then the terrorists will somehow "get their hands on it".

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

  19. In unrelated news.... by st0rmshad0w · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Pods of cybernetic dolphins have claimed responsibilty for recent defacements to the University of Southern California's website.

  20. Alright. but what happens when whaes eat em ? by CDWert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is cool, Im all for minature robotics, like the
    one the Brit came up with that feeds and then powers itself on their bodies. They could gather invaluable
    information on the oceans, BUT are hey going to put a JONAH circut in these things ?

    I mean what happens when a plankton feeder sucks up a hundred thousand or so of these, it will (may) register a higher temp, movement pattern etc.

    I love the idea of a self sufficient ocengoing robot, I always have, I saw a solar robot creature
    demo a few years ago, neuralnet stuff, that the jellyfish would react to the crab etc, Why no use a larger scale verson, build em in Taiwan at 2 bucks a pop and set em loose, A larger unit could accomplish this, perhaps much more efficently, Miniturization for Minituriztions sake has always eluded me.

    --
    Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
  21. Definitions by medcalf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't "swarms of microscopic robots" constitute "potentially dangerous microorganisms"?

    --
    -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
  22. Is this like... by spatrick_123 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this anything like those Sea Monkeys I had as a kid? :-)

    1. Re:Is this like... by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      Im kinda thinkin more like the robot in the matrix that neo finds after 'waking up', just REAL small =).

  23. Since it's U of So Cal... by NecroPuppy · · Score: 1

    ...the big questions won't necessarily be how might these affect the environment as much as they will be, how with these affect the surfing...

    --
    I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
  24. Hellooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Is anyone home there? Monitoring pollution by dumping large amounts of microscopic robots into the pollution seems ridiculous. What happens if a fish eats these robots? Do they retain them?

    This is fascinating, but I'd prefer to see these studies being done in tanks, not in the frigging ocean. This seems like it will become yet another one of those examples where the solution to one problem becomes an even bigger problem itself.

    1. Re:Hellooo by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
      But isnt that a bit short-sighted? What happens when were overrun by lizards?
      No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. Theyll wipe out the lizards.
      But arent the snakes even worse?
      Yes, but were prepared for that. Weve lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
      But then were stuck with gorillas!
      No, thats the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

      (The Simpsons, of course.)

  25. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...i'm a poor college student. Is there an open-source version of these robots?

  26. Uh-oh. by Stonehand · · Score: 2, Funny

    From the article:

    "I don't think these robots will be confined to the ocean. We will eventually make robots to hunt down pathogens..."

    Quoth Agent Smith: "Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague. And we are... the cure."

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    1. Re:Uh-oh. by sharkey · · Score: 2

      We will eventually make robots to hunt down pathogens...

      Too bad Dubya didn't have any pretzel-fighting nanobots yesterday. Would have saved him a trip to the floor.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  27. And then, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get them all to meet at some location and solve RSA problems.

  28. It's okay. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 2

    It's okay. Just boil tapwater before you drink it; that will destroy any microscopic robots within.

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    1. Re:It's okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.theonion.com/onion3321/windows98.html

  29. Nanobot conspiracy!! by Kutsal · · Score: 1

    What if these nanobots figure out how to incorporate marine life into themselves, create a big hybrid creature controlled by their collective intelligence and try to take over the world???!?!?!?!!

    --
    Karma: Bad (but who really cares anyway?)
    1. Re:Nanobot conspiracy!! by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      That means its time to invest in a thicker tin foil hat.

    2. Re:Nanobot conspiracy!! by simetra · · Score: 1

      One word:

      Godzilla.

      But you're probably okay so long as you don't live in Japan.

      --

      "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  30. Linux is crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    If you AGREE then mod this DOWN

    If not, then mod it UP

    Thank you!

  31. Why bother with the Ocean? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The worst pollution happens on land, particulary from Ag run-off, and re-irrigation, which draws salts out of soil and makes downstream water unusable. Just look for dead plants or mutated babies and you'll know enough.

    BTW, read in the Sunday paper that Erin Brockovich is on the trail of another suit against PG&E for Chromium 6 in ground water.

    Interested in a history of water use and mis-use? Read Cadillac Desert, by Marc Reisner.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Why bother with the Ocean? by GlenRaphael · · Score: 2
      BTW, read in the Sunday paper that Erin Brockovich is on the trail of another suit against PG&E for Chromium 6 in ground water.
      Erin Brockovich was wrong; there's no evidence to suggest a link between the problems of Hinkley, CA and Chomium 6. According to a relevant Wall Street Journal article:

      Here's what the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, updated in 1998, says about chromium 6: "No data were located in the available literature that suggested that it is carcinogenic by the oral route of exposure."

      Exhaustive, repeated studies of communities adjacent to landfills packed with chromium 6, including that detectable in residents' urine, have found no ill health effects, cancer or otherwise. A January report from Glasgow, Scotland, found "no increased risk of congenital abnormalities, lung cancer, or a range of other diseases." Earlier, a panel evaluating exposed residents near a New Jersey landfill estimated that "the plausible incremental cancer risk to individuals at residential sites would be substantially less than 1 in 1,000,000."

      A study by Mr. Blot and others, just published in The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, evaluated almost 52,000 workers who worked at three PG&E plants over a quarter of a century. One was the Hinkley plant, and another is near Kettleman, Calif., where Ms. Brockovich's firm is rounding up plaintiffs today. The researchers found cancer rates were no higher than in the general California population and death rates significantly lower than expected.

      Other studies have shown that rodents dosed at 25 parts per million and dogs dosed at 11.2 parts per million displayed no ill effects. The amount of chromium 6 in Hinkley's water never got higher than 0.58 parts per million. As for miscarriages, the EPA reports that in studies of mice and rats, "the reproductive assessment indicated that administered at 15-400 ppm in the diet [it] is not a reproductive toxicant in either sex."

      Given all this, why did PG&E cough up $333 million? For one thing, much of this medical evidence came in after the settlement. Further, Ms. Brockovich's small firm enlisted high-powered trial lawyer Thomas Girardi, a specialist in toxic pollution suits. Slick lawyers and sympathetic witnesses could have cost the company much more at trial or arbitration.

      --
      I play Nerd-Folk!
    2. Re:Why bother with the Ocean? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Having lived for 35 years in Midland, Michigan, home of Dow Checmical and Dow Corning, I'm well aquainted with the perceptions which can be drawn from a few cases and that objective analysis is often necessary to get to the truth. As far as I can see, PG&E suffered the loss in the first case primarily for their efforts to obstruct. Transparancy and providing complete access to information is their best bet. The public dislikes anyone who attempts to hide things.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  32. Well by wiredog · · Score: 2

    The robots probably live longer...

  33. eww, little robots! by jjeffries · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I hope they've got that "don't hurt any humans" thing down, because when they get smart enough to find out where all the pollution is coming from, they're going to come hunt us down.

    Each and every one of us.

    And bore through our miserable human bodies.

    Slowly.

    FROM THE INSIDE OUT!

    But, other than that, great idea!

  34. Clustering at a very very small size by Quizme2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now for those of us that read the Damn article. The ability for the project to suceed on only 1.5 mil is pretty ambitious, the article mentions that they need the software to link together millions of these 'bots via weak radio link, and a mass producing method of creating the other 999,990 units. I would really like to know how they fit a device that transmits a unique indenitifer and a binary digit in an envirment that would seem to distort any type of transmission and amplify electric interfernece.

    --
    "Get them before they get....
  35. moderators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy tiny robots, who are the dopes behind the moderation buttons today? None of the moderated-up comments seem to have come from anyone who's read the article...

  36. Where's the Energy? by klaun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem I've always seen to nanobots is where does such a small device store energy? In looking at various proposals and ideas on how they would work and what they'd do, it seems energy storage is always the missing component. Propulsion, RF transmission, anything involving actuators are all going to be energy-expensive activities, where does the energy come from?

    1. Re:Where's the Energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magic

    2. Re:Where's the Energy? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      A system as chaotic as a water container large enough to have temperature differences in its various parts and thus creating various streams of water (turbulent streams) is the energy source. What do you mean where the energy is stored? The ocean of-course. The robots will have to have some mechanism of extracting the energy (be it the temperature or pressure or direction differentials). Imagine a creature that consists of a very very thin and strong wire, on both ends of that wire you can have two elements each of which is pressure sensitive. Once the horizontal position of one changes, the pressure in the element also changes, this somehow produces energy. Since the two elements are connected and since they can actually share their energy, the system has more chances of survival. Now, imagine that this system connects to another system with an extra wire. What you can have is some sort of an organism in which every part of the organism is almost nothing, but the energy potential grows the more elements are present in the system. In fact, we could use this technique to generate energy for ourselves.

    3. Re:Where's the Energy? by The+Milky+Bar+Kid · · Score: 2

      Another method is the Brownian Ratchet. This consists of a nano-sized wheel, with a ratchet allowing movement in only one direction. Brownian motion in the water will move the wheel in random directions, but as the ratchet only allows movement in one direction, the result is a slowly rotating wheel. Still pretty theoretical, but then, so is the rest of this :).

      --
      -- This post is about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, Karma
    4. Re:Where's the Energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems far fetched with our present technology, but it is done in nature so I doubt it is impossible. Are the physical limits that much more favorible for microscopic organic lifeforms (machines) than non-organic machines?

    5. Re:Where's the Energy? by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      Wait a sec...

      I know nothing of fluid dynamics or, for that matter, the ocean...

      But it seems to me that for these things to be effective, they would need to be pretty close to the surface pretty much all of the time (which is where most of the pollution is, right?)
      If that is the case, I don't think the temperature or pressure is going to vary all that much. If you make the robot of such a density that it can take advantage of differing water pressures, wouldn't you run the risk of most of your nanites sinking to the bottom?

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    6. Re:Where's the Energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thermal vibrations in the ratchet's catch will render the brownian ratchet fairly ineffective. Feynman discussed this in his Lectures in Physics.

      .
  37. Digestion by Catskul · · Score: 1

    They might make the robots digestable, so that any organism big enough to eat them will be able to digest them, and possibly use them as a food source. :)

    --

    Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
    1. Re:Digestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might make the robots digestable, so that any organism big enough to eat them will be able to digest them, and possibly use them as a food source. :)

      Yeah, and then we get new algae-problems because of it. Why are we always so eager to take nature into our own hands?

  38. Cant wait to swallow or eat them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Maybe this is what've been needing to gain my regularity back. Maybe while they're in there, they can rebuild my arthiritic fingers from programming for so many years. Or better yet, analyze my blood alcohol content, and give me a warning buzz, and an override button. I cant wait, I am going to go eat some drill bits and a wrench, maybe an entire Erector set.

  39. You Drink Salt Water? by Quizme2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They article mentioned that these would be used in oceans near industrial areas, not your local artisan well or mountain spring. And if you did *drink* them, well then you would *release* them later on, a billionth of an inch is so small you could breath these in a 1,000 at a time and they would get stuck in the mucus membrane in your lungs. Ok..Ok.. You get injected with these things via a crazed scientist in your local mall, your white blood cells, liver, and kidneys would desolve them in you blood stream and release the waste o'natural.

    --
    "Get them before they get....
    1. Re:You Drink Salt Water? by einer · · Score: 1

      No part of robots (no matter how itty bitty) exiting me, via my urethra, sounds appealing.

      Thanks, but no.

    2. Re:You Drink Salt Water? by Bob+McCown · · Score: 1

      Nor to me, either. I have visions of this happening, only much much worse...

    3. Re:You Drink Salt Water? by Stultsinator · · Score: 1

      And if you did *drink* them, well then you would *release* them later on

      Maybe, maybe not. Mercury atoms are even smaller, but that doesn't allow them to pass through our systems.

      Hopefully the transmitter that allows them to communicate their data will allow us to track them down (and hopefully they're very reliable). Otherwise we won't even have a place to start to recover them if they get stuck in blue whale livers and can't find their way home.

      Still, a very cool idea.

    4. Re:You Drink Salt Water? by DCram · · Score: 1

      If I built these guys the whole world would be in danger.

      First they would carry a toxin that would make you look like the Joker. Second they would feed of the life force of all of the living beings that they encountered. Thirdly they would make me so freakin sexy to those of the female gender (human of course). Lastly if i felt realy nasty I would make you all love MS...MUHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAA. (*pinky to lip*) I'm so evil they would say it EEEEVILE!!

      I might also add some cool stuff like cloning ability and a few lasers and maybe a PPG or a BFG. just for SAG's

      --
      If I were only smart enough to accomplish the things I dream about.. Or maybe too dumb to care.
    5. Re:You Drink Salt Water? by Mr.Ned · · Score: 1

      It could very well be in your local well. With all the water being drained out of aquifers these days (especailly midwest), there's always the possiblility that salt water could seep in to fill the place of the removed fresh water. Can't remember off the top of my head (or google search) where I read about this happening, but happen it does.

      Plus, what about desalinization in California?

    6. Re:You Drink Salt Water? by Jtf · · Score: 1

      This is begining to become a big problem near savannah georgia. There are a lot of paper mills down here and they use more water than the rest of the city combined. The outlaying islands already have a completely salt water table because of this problem

  40. Oregon Water by wbav · · Score: 1

    Here in Oregon, we have the Bull run water shed. I've been up to see it as I worked for the City of Portland at one time. The water was so clear you could see the bottom center of the lake, fish and all. Our tubidity (the amount of leaves and crap that you don't want to drink) was less than that of cities using filter systems. Personally I would not like to add anything to my water as it is some of the best in the world.

    --

    =================
    Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
    1. Re:Oregon Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Grandfather said he use to drink from Lake Erie. He's in his late eightees. Imagine that. I say we pour cocoa into the Great Lakes and make one big chocolate float. Use the robots for texture.

    2. Re:Oregon Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errr, OK. What's your point? What does this have to do with nanobots monitoring pollution in the ocean?

    3. Re:Oregon Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no point. Just trying to ramble on about trival, pointless, self-indulgent things like most other /.'ers :)

  41. Here's what they'll be monitoring by programic · · Score: 2, Funny

    The gut of a whale or other plankton-eating creature.

    --
    -- yawn. --
  42. In other news ... by TheViffer · · Score: 2

    Phillips has entered into an agreement with USC to piggy back encrytion software into the nanoprobes. The purpose is that "humans" would serve as node-receivers in wireless networks. The nanaoprobes would then be able to scramble and encrypt data before arriving at its final destination.

    *sigh*
    Wasnt there an article some time about shooting lasers from the moon to create electricity?

    repeat after me ...
    "To much Star Trek"

    --
    -- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
  43. Environmental impact? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

    So these things generate an electrical charge. What if they are injested or otherwise enter some water dwelling creature? What happens if they wind up in neural tissue? This just sounds like a bad idea.

  44. Robots in my Tunafish by TheAlabamaKid · · Score: 1

    I wonder that I'll have little robots in my can of tunafish. I'll check the labels carefully to make sure that I only buy robot free tuna.

    Wouldn't there be more pratical ways, like putting sensors on commerical boats? You'd have a nice big power source to share from and perhaps even large antennas to transmit your data.

  45. Will they become fish food? by exceed · · Score: 2

    Microscpoic to humans, yes, but not to fish. Will fish eat these things or at least chew them up enough to destroy them?

    Fish are unintelligent enough to mistake a hairy peice of silver for a fly, why wouldn't they mistake these robots for some food?

    --

    void women (int money, time_t time);
    1. Re:Will they become fish food? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm...no.

      Do the math, pal. Microscopic to humans would be microscopic to fish. We aren't talking about nemotodes.

  46. They already exist in the /. server by kievit · · Score: 1
    This page was generated by a Swarm of Microscopic Robots for kievit (303920).

    I am sure Slashdot was presented to me with that line four days ago. Today it said in the morning that a Cadre of Random Chickens was in charge, and now a team of Stealth Ninjas, but Friday it was done by microbots. Really.

  47. Wow! by RareHeintz · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Imagine a Beo...

    No, I can't do it.

    Jokes aside, that's interesting stuff - but also a little scary. Once you have free-roving nanites monitoring pollutants in the Pacific, how long is it before someone comes up with a way to have them monitor, say, intoxicant levels in your blood?

    Just imagine having your workplace demand the ability to monitor what you do with your body 24/7. "Have a few margaritas last Saturday, Wilson? You should really keep an eye on that sort of behavior. You are a company asset, after all..."

    OK,
    - B

    1. Re:Wow! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Heh, my companies not even considered a drug-free workplace. The policy is don't ask don't tell. At least I won't have to worry about my boss giving me bioscans...

      Ain't telecom _great_!

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:Wow! by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      I'd rather that the nanites be able to collect dead cell tissue and use it to ferment alcohol, which could then be rereleased into my bloodstream, thus keeping me drunk all of the time (for free!)

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

  48. The 'bots aren't real yet. by foo+fighter · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read the article you will learn that they don't even have a fully functioning prototype yet, and anything they say they are going to do is wild speculation at this point. As are the comments here forcasting ecological disaster or weird effects when ingested.

    Also, from the article, they currently are trying to learn how to control 5-10 robots. They are a long way from learning how to control the millions of robots needed for any monitoring to be effective. The researches said that nanotechnology today is at the same stage of development as the Internet was in the late 1960's.

    I'd say we are a decade or more from seeing any of these things actually released into the wild.

    --
    obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
  49. Don't you just love.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....any news story starting with "Swarms of Tiny Robots?"

  50. TinyXP == blue color by garoush · · Score: 4, Funny

    BREAKING NEWS

    It is no secret that those "tiny robots" which monitor the quality of our drining water end up in our body system. However, the big puzzle about why we are seeing so many good citizens coming to a temporarily halt and turning into "blue" color for a short period of time, has been explained.

    It turned out that the government has used an Operating System called TinyXP (tm) produced by a company called Microsoft to be the source of the problem. Aperently those robats are "crashing" and emiting "blue" color until they recover.

    While Microsoft did not acknowledge the problem, nor did they deniy it. They simply said that they didn't have any comments.

    --

    Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
    1. Re:TinyXP == blue color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Microsoft"?
      nah, they'll be called "Nanosoft"...

  51. SNL ref [OT] by hawkestein · · Score: 1

    Remember, those denying the existence of nanorobots might actually be nanorobots themselves.

    Old Glory robot life insurance, right? The one thing that has always stayed great on Saturday Night Live has been their commercials. Even when the show was at its worst.

    --
    -- Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?
  52. Swarms.... by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

    When I first read this article, I thought Slashdot's "Swarm Bots" took over the articles too..

    This Article was generated by a Swarm of Tiny Robots for josh crawley (537561).

  53. Old-school nanotech is still the best! by Graff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not that big on the mechanical nanotech, we have a long way yet to go before we can duplicate some of the most perfect nanotech systems out there: microorganisms.

    We have the ability right now to craft custom virii and bacteria which can replicate and destroy other creatures. If we want to kill cryptosporidium and giardia (two common water-bourne parasites) then we should find the natural predators of such creatures and turn them to our needs.

    It's similar to the chemical spraying of crops to prevent insects and other pests from destroying harvests. For years we have been laying on the pesticides in order to stop crops from being ruined. Instead of relying on chemicals, we should instead be investing in natural methods of reducing pests, such as the use of preying mantis, ladybugs, egg-laying wasps, and other natural predators.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think that all chemicals are evil and should be eliminated. I'm a chemist myself. I do believe that we can be much more effective if we cut back on the more toxic chemicals and replace them with more gentle alternatives. Many of the harsher chemicals build up and end up destroying the producing potential of our farmlands.

    1. Re:Old-school nanotech is still the best! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History shows again and again that "fixing" nature the way you suggests, greatly diminishes the problem, by causing a much larger one! Just look at Australia and all the fuzz about how they import natural predators to (imported) rabbits that cause so much trouble.

      Instead of looking for a quick fix, I suggest taking walks IN nature instead of watching it through the tube, and appreciate what we have. For surely we are destroying piece by piece for it right now, so enjoy it while it lasts!

    2. Re:Old-school nanotech is still the best! by bungalow · · Score: 2

      We have the ability right now to craft custom virii and bacteria which can replicate and destroy other creatures.

      No.

      Call me a flat - earther, (or better yet, call me a Catholic) but I don't see the benefit in creating custom-virii to counteract other parasites.

      For instance, look at the at the Africanized bee. (Aphis mellifera scutellata)


      I know that "killer bees" is a misnomer, but the aggression of the Africanized bee is something that scientists failed to account for in their creation, much to the detriment of Sounth and Central America and some areas of Texas. Creating custom lifeforms is not what we should be doing.

      Transporting animals to do one thing or another, OTOH, is somewhere between here and there. The Spanish brought horses; I brought my dog from Arlington to Austin, and he fathered in Austin.

      I'm not an expert in morality (I'm still trying to figure right V wrong out myself) but I can't see the creation of custom lifeforms as a Good Thing under any circumstances.

    3. Re:Old-school nanotech is still the best! by Graff · · Score: 2

      > Just look at Australia and all the fuzz about
      > how they import natural predators to
      > (imported) rabbits that cause so much trouble.

      Oh, I think that importing creatures in to fix a problem is a heavy-handed approach that often results in disaster. By piling one bad idea on top of the other you often compound the problem. You are better off trying to find some way to encourage natural predation to evolve. Perhaps find a native species that could be taught to prey on the rabbits. Another idea is to change the non-native species in some way, perhaps by cross-breeding to a native species that is similar. The resulting animal may be able to breed with the non-native ones and convert them into something less dangerous to the environment.

      If you absolutely have no recourse but to introduce another non-native species, do so in as controlled of a setting as possible. Perhaps use preditors that require some nutrient only you can provide, that way you can pull back this nutrient if the experiment fails and you can eliminate the introduced animals.

      As with any move, evaluate it to death before it is implemented. Once the genie is out of the bottle it is almost impossible to put back in.

    4. Re:Old-school nanotech is still the best! by Graff · · Score: 2
      I'm not an expert in morality (I'm still trying to figure right V wrong out myself) but I can't see the creation of custom lifeforms as a Good Thing under any circumstances.

      Scientists creating custom lifeforms is really no different than what happens in nature, it is just on a different time-scale.

      As an example: I am a chemist who has worked with water treatment systems for industrial use. One of the projects I worked on involved bacteriological treatment. We had a waste stream which was loaded with organic compounds, some of which were pretty nasty. It was going to be horribly expensive to chemically or mechanically treat the water, and we couldn't just release the stuff out to the environment. It's not only illegal, it's also immoral.

      What we did was to take a sample of bacteria found in sewer sludge (we bought it, we didn't have to go into the manholes for it!). We put these normal, everyday bacteria into bottles which had a very low concentration of our waste. Most of the bacteria were killed, but some tough ones survived. We took those and added in a stronger mixture of our waste and the same thing happened. After doing this dozens of times, we not only ended up with bacteria that could live in our waste, but also used it as a source of food.

      These bacteria "evolved" into being the perfect waste treatment system. They would break down a complex soup of organic compounds into carbon dioxide and other non-toxic wastes. They had no negative impact on the environment because they would die without our waste food. We tested them exhaustively and found the water coming out of our pilot treatment plant to be as clean as the water outside the facility.

      So just like anything else out there, science can be used in a responsible manner that does good. The key is to spend a ton of time testing your ideas to make sure that the risks are minimized. Accidents will happen, but they will happen with anything, not just with science.

    5. Re:Old-school nanotech is still the best! by G00F · · Score: 1

      " Perhaps use preditors that require some nutrient only you can provide, that way you can pull back this nutrient if the experiment fails and you can eliminate the introduced animals."

      Just like the book, Jurasic Park?

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    6. Re:Old-school nanotech is still the best! by bungalow · · Score: 2

      we not only ended up with bacteria that could live in our waste, but also used it as a source of food....These bacteria "evolved" into being the perfect waste treatment system.

      And, quite possibly (I shudder to think that evolution was your goal) "evolved" into something more resistant to the toxins that should have killed it. How does this advance us in the use of antibiotics? What is the name of this bacteria, and what does it do when introduced to Humans? If it is not directly harmful to humans, then what about other lifeforms? How certain are you that you haven't plagued species X with the "evolution" that you seem so proud of having caused. Have you accounted for every single species that might encounter your evolved bacteria?

      Science is a tool that can be used for good purposes, I agree. The discoveries of the wheel, fire, and fire extinguishers were all good. Ultimately, science will lead to absolute proof of God's existence. But science, as a tool, like all tools can be used for evil as well. Even the Holy Bible can be used to hit my grandmother and knock her down. In this case, tool isn't the problem; the problem is its use.

      On the other hand, there are certan tools that can be used only for destructive purposes. Pornography comes to mind, in as much as it short - circuits a normal, healthy sex drive and although a pornographic book can be used to hold up the short leg of my dinner table, that clearly is not its intended purpose.

      At any rate, my argument was not Utilitarian; it was Judeo-Christian, specifically Catholic. It is not good, according to God's will, to try to design your own bacteria, cat, dog, or child, as it shows a grave disrespect for life and for God. Furthermore, we have no idea what kind of impact such a grave decision could bring about. That one would try to justify doing it for the use of cleaning up after our wasteful society, is little more than a further indictment of our wastefulness.

      Look at the lengths we have to go to just to clean up after ourselves! Can't we just learn not to make a mess in the first place?!

      Read my sig. To error in the side of being pedantic, read ! as "not".

      Read the posts about the nanorobots to clean up after the other nanorobots.

      Think about the story of Eve. If you don't know it, start here Understand that Eve was conned into thinking that it wasn't really "that bad". Yet she showed such disrespect for God, that we're all suffering.

    7. Re:Old-school nanotech is still the best! by Graff · · Score: 2

      " Perhaps use preditors that require some nutrient only you can provide, that way you can pull back this nutrient if the experiment fails and you can eliminate the introduced animals."

      > Just like the book, Jurasic Park?

      Right, it's actually an old idea but an extremely valid one. The point is to choose something that can't be found naturally and can be controlled easily. The substance might not even actually kill the animal if it is withheld, but might instead interfere with its breeding habits, thus preventing it from reproducing.

      Now we just have to make sure we don't use frog DNA... :)

    8. Re:Old-school nanotech is still the best! by Graff · · Score: 2
      At any rate, my argument was not Utilitarian; it was Judeo-Christian, specifically Catholic. It is not good, according to God's will, to try to design your own bacteria, cat, dog, or child, as it shows a grave disrespect for life and for God.

      I understand these are your beliefs and you believe them for your own reasons, so don't take this as an attack or a flame war - I'm just throwing in an observation.

      How do we know what God's mind is (assuming that he does exist)? According to the Bible, God created us in his image and he did give us a brain. In other words, he made it so that we are thinking beings. Who is to say that he didn't intend us to manipulate nature any way we choose? I don't think that we should even start to pretend we understand anything about the mind or the will of God, again working on the assumption that he exists.

      That being said, I feel we should always work on the principle of our own good, since that is a tangible ideal we can work toward. Is it good to ruin our environment? Is it good to make people sick? No, obviously not. That's why every choice we make and every idea which science comes up with should be evaluated as much as possible.

      In the case of the bacteria strain which I and others helped to develop, it was fairly obvious that it was as harmless as possible. Bacterial strains similar to the one we "evolved" are found everywhere, they naturally form on their own in nature. When we attempted to "reverse-evolve" the strain we had developed, we found that the bacteria returned to be almost exactly what they had started out from. They didn't gain super mutant powers, they didn't gain resistance to antibiotics. To be sure, we even added a UV light final stage to our scrubbers, along with a biodegradable scrubber material. This assured that all traces of the bacteria were removed from the treated waste stream.

      Not all scientists are evil, power-hungry tyrants, just the ones you see in the cartoons and the movies! :)

    9. Re:Old-school nanotech is still the best! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me a flat - earther, (or better yet, call me a Catholic)

      Same thing you poor diluted cultist. Why dont you run off and worship a pile of rocks or do a dance for fertility - WAKE UP, RELIGION IS FOR THE WEAK!

      There is no God, just because people tell their children about Santa Claus doesnt make him real - its mast hysteria coupled with inertia. BREAK THE CYCLE!

    10. Re:Old-school nanotech is still the best! by bungalow · · Score: 2

      I understand these are your beliefs and you believe them for your own reasons, so don't take this as an attack or a flame war - I'm just throwing in an observation.

      Indeed, I wish I had said the same, as I also mean it sincerely. There are some people who do like to bash others over the head with their bible; I try not to act like that.

      I don't think that we should even start to pretend we understand anything about the mind or the will of God, again working on the assumption that he exists.

      While we cannot know God's will in its fullness, a good start is the Bible, the Catechism, and a healthy amount of prayer. The Ten Commandments were a pretty good indication of God's will, as was the birth, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

      That being said, I feel we should always work on the principle of our own good,

      Here's where you get into trouble, especially here:

      That being said, I feel we should always work on the principle of our own good,

      WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOOD FOR US. We don't have a clue. Just look at what we're doing to the environment, and how big a mess we have to clean up. I'll ask again, why can't we learn not to make messes in the first place?! I'd cite other examples, but they'd just sidetrack our conversation further. (free love -> abortion comes to mind, as does pornography -> stunted love life...somehow I see a third connection to be made here..)

      Don't get me wrong: whether it is better for me to eat rice or a hamburger, usually isn't a decision I reserve solely for God. On the other hand, I'm grateful for all the signals that have come from Him, some of which only I could see, and some of which I ignored entirely, to my own shame.

      Not all scientists are evil, power-hungry tyrants, just the ones you see in the cartoons and the movies! :)
      You are correct. No one (NO ONE) is inheriently and completely evil. All people of every profession have some redeeming qualities, although some people have to leave their environments to find those qualities.

      "Complete Evil" is a complete absence and denial of goodness. Science IS NOT evil, nor are scientists. That was the point of my paragraph about the Bible. On the other hand, SOME USES of science ARE evil, even though they appear good at first.

  54. Won't the water kill the radio waves? by Medievalist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    /.
    The article specified weak radio signals as the method of inter-nodal communication, but propagation of radio frequencies through water that isn't nano-pure really sucks.
    Sonar seems more feasible, particularly in salt water where radio doesn't work worth a damn. Of course then you'd have to worry about noise pollution... hey, wait, even if the radio signals work you are going to be really messing with electrically sensitive organisms (electric eels being the obvious example, but they aren't the only ones).
    --Charlie

    1. Re:Won't the water kill the radio waves? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      What if you have a billion of your robots that do not simply spread around like maniacs but actually following well defined patterns of behaviour? What if all robots are positioned within a radio range between themselves (one robot sends signal to the next and so on, until the signal reaches your receiver. The robots must follow a well defined pattern so that they can actually simulate behaviour of such objects as a receiever dish (let's say the signal is sent over the satellite every 24 hours that asks the robots to transmit back information collected in that period of time, then 1 hour before the signal, the robots all reposition themselves into an structure that will have an accumulative effect equal to a receiver/transmitter microwave dish.

    2. Re:Won't the water kill the radio waves? by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      /.
      These thingies are too small to be able to affect their own positions much. A raindrop falling nearby, a rock thrown by an errant child, current abberations, the flip of a fishes' tail; anything like that would move the nanite so far out of position it might take hours to recover. It's going to have a very teensy little propellor after all, and you can't count on water being entirely still in the real world.
      If you use so many of them that you affect (even slightly) the transparency of the water, you've got another pollution problem...
      --Charlie

  55. They'll get into the food chain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And who's gonna pay my dental bill after biting on those things in a Tuna sandwich???

  56. concerns and thoughts by kalyptein · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There have been a number of posts asking about the effect of dumping these nanobots into the water, both on the marine ecology and anyone who might drink them. Well, first off, if you drink untreated salt water you have bigger problems than nanobots.

    But yes, the effect needs to be addressed. Although, these aren't self-replicators it should be noted. The density of the bots will be crucial. Assuming they don't build up to a measurable level of "silt", I don't see an immediate problem. Organisms can cope with drinking grains of sand, and these will be comparable to that, or smaller. From what I can gather from the article, they are planning to use inorganic materials for the most part (metals, silicon). If that's the case, I would expect them to be treated much like any other piece of grit. Its the organic compounds that really stick with you.

    I like this idea in general, but I'm a little dubious about how well it will work, regardless of side-effects. If you want to use antibodies, you'd better get the binding affinity just right, or you'll end up with a lot of false positives (low affinity) or a bot with all its sensors permanently clogged up (high affinity). Passing through fish digestive systems, getting sucked up by filter-feeders, and generally tossed about in a well-lit, ion-rich solution doesn't do much for long term operation. Are we planning to pump these things into the ocean nonstop?

    Still, good luck to them. I'd love to see something like this made to work.

    --
    Entropy gets everyone.
  57. Operating System = clean fecal matter by First_In_Hell · · Score: 0

    Let's just hope they are not running Windows XP.

    I would be pissed as all fuck if someone gave birth to a massive turd in my drinking water and a robot couldn't clean it up due to a fatal exception error.

    There is nothing more terrifing than drinking water with bits of fecal matter floating around in it.

    I think the governmnet should invest tons of money into this program and others like it. I mean, it will be usable technology in only 100 years or so. The scientists are probably at the stage where the robot can figure out how to wipe its own ass. They have a long way to go before that thing can clean up festering bacteria!

    There should also be robots in all public bathrooms to clean crap chips off of people after they have an attack of the shits, then when smelly old people that work at my job dump, I don't have to smell it.

    I mean really, the application of this technology is endless!

  58. Great. The next big hit from Don Ho..... by oobeleck · · Score: 1

    Tiny robots, in the wine,
    Make me feel nervous, swimming in my spine,
    Tiny robots make my skin crawl all over
    With a feeling that our race is running out of time.

    So here's to the golden circuitry,
    And here's to our silvery seas,
    But most of all a toast to USC.

  59. Wont happen... by RetardHumper · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows that Cthulu lives deep in the ocean and has already secretly taken over the world.

  60. Distopia by God_Retired · · Score: 0

    Does no one else see a potential plot here with these nano machines killing off a large portion of the crap/fish/whatever...but there are a few who adapt and join...and now they are bionic...and they're pissed....

  61. there is somthing... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... that allready does this. They're called frogs.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  62. This is great news by evilpaul13 · · Score: 1

    Now if only I can procure some for the coffee machine at work!

  63. Macroorganism Monitoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if they could only make something to control those dangerous macroorganisms (the two legged kind) that threaten the ocean's health.

  64. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks.

  65. More info by QuantumG · · Score: 2

    available here. The applications of the general techniques they are developing are pretty interesting. Even the further development of SPM's into three dimensional probing is pretty remarkable. Not to mention the greater ends of nanotechniques on manufacture.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard you're a fag. Big fan of taco snotting, huh?

  66. We must monitor this pollution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The swarms of tiny robots in the water are necessary to monitor the pollution caused by the exhaust of the swarms of tiny robots.

  67. Not only good for polution monitoring by dangrsmind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once this technology is developed it can also be used to monitor for other things. Send a swarm of nanobots into the sewer system looking for traces of illegal substances in waste for example. Just have the little buggers "backtrace" through the sewer network to find your house.

    Have a nice day.

  68. Wow by kirkb · · Score: 1

    What a coincidence -- my slashdot main page was also generated by a swarm of tiny robots (honest!). They sure are versatile.

    --
    Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
  69. Fart On, Toejam. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything from University of South Central either is or will be crap. In this case, it'll be whale crap.

  70. Detect ships and submarines? by crow · · Score: 1

    If we have a bunch of robots out there in the ocean, why just use them to monitor pollution levels? Why couldn't they also monitor shipping and submarines?

    So we spread out a network of nano-robots throughout the oceans, and the US military then knows exactly where every submarine in the world is located. Whether scary privacy invasion or good intelligence, it's probably just about as doable as the stated objective.

  71. Read before you post by Syberghost · · Score: 1

    Fully 1/3rd of the comments posted on this thread should be moderated down as "Redundant".

    And that's just of the +2 level ones I see. I'm sure the percentage is even higher downstairs.

  72. Can they monitor their own death? by angry_clown_penis · · Score: 0

    AhH yes but can they monitor their own death? Seems that bunches of robots swimming around and then dying would constitute pollution as well. After they die will they add their own body count?

  73. rim shot please by gspeare · · Score: 0

    Waiter, there's a robot in my soup!

  74. What about the whales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone done an environmental impact study on how well whales will handle these tiny robots. Will they just pass through the whales plankton filters. Will they report a high amount of pollution while passing through the bowels of the whale?

    We need to consider stuff like this.

  75. Hah, this reminds of a theme from Star Trek. by KhanReaper · · Score: 1

    Hrmm, this sounds like something from Star Trek. The day the nannites or nano-bots rebel. It would be funny to drink some of these or to have some of these little bots rebel like cancer in the water killing any life inside of it.

    Hrmm, I wonder what they would do to my water-softner?

    --
    Even the Politburo concurs with Process of Elimination http://process-of-elimination.net
  76. Africanized Killer Swarmbots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This things will work fine until some miscreant mates them with African swarmbots in order to create more output.

  77. The Borg.... by k2x · · Score: 1

    All these little plankton critters...I can see...err...hear it now: "Resistance is futile."

  78. Little Guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Tiny people, with little guns
    Little armies march, to little drums
    What do they want?
    What do they want?

    Tiny soldiers, with little guns
    Little tanks, no bigger than your thumb
    They want you

    Little people, with tiny brains
    Little bullets flowing, in their veins
    What do they want?
    What do they want?

    Tiny people with little guns
    Little armies march, to little drums
    They want you, you
    You, you, you, you

    Little airplanes, with tiny bombs
    Little squadrons, dropping thimbles of Napalm
    They want you

    What do they want?
    What do they want?

    Tiny people, with little guns
    Little armies march, to little drums
    You, you
    You, you, you, you

    Tiny people, little guns
    Tiny people, little guns
    Tiny people, little guns

  79. How many of these would they need? by exploder · · Score: 2

    I assume that the effective distance for communication between these things is relatively short. Given the rather large body of water they'll be released into, wouldn't a prohibitively large number of these things be required?

    --
    Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
  80. YOU SIR ARE MY HERO. YOUR'E MY NEW FAVORITE TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love you very much. Thank you for your words of Wisdom. *mwha*

  81. Keep the press away from scientists by eaolson · · Score: 1

    *BWOOP* Vaporware alert. Take cover. *BWOOP*

    It looks to me like this research group just got a grant from the NSF, and some reporter got ahold of the proposal and ran with it.

    Nobody is talking about making these robots. No way could you ever build such things with a measly $1.5 mil grant spread over three different research groups.

    From the press release, it looks like this group uses an atomic force microscope to push small amounts of material around. They build things like tiny wires, have even made a single transistor, and are working on a simple switch. They're light years away from radio-controlled robots, let alone releasing them into the ocean.

    This was probably a research grant for basic science, not one to build a fleet of pollution monitoring nanites.

    Nanotechnology like the press likes to report is the stuff of science fiction, at least for the next 50 to 100 years.

  82. Its already TOO poluted ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Talk about something we already know ... whe dont need something to tell us its poluted we need something that will undo what this stupid polution as done ...

    Its like an antivirus on windows that is telling you every time it found a virus in your machine when you are scanning because it said it detected one ( Nimda virus that infected Favorite come to mind I have 2500 favorites ... )my thinking at the time was stupid thing I know its infected I payed for you to destroy/prevent those bugger ...

    I would rather have something that help me get back to the beach that are now too poluted to use then have something that tell me Hey , its polluted and here is why !

    I personnally dont care about the why I whant a real solution.

    Or I whant the job of the guy that as to report to whomever is asking to know if its poluted I would keep the money for the building of additionnal microcospic robot in my bank account and still say its too poluted ...

  83. I like it: "this somehow produces energy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, don't bogart that joint.

    1. Re:I like it: "this somehow produces energy" by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      What's the problem? I don't know what the best way to produce energy from pressure difference is but I know a few ways to do it (like spinning a magnet in a solenoid) however there are much better ways of producing energy by using various membranes - you can actually use the salt water of the ocean to charge your capacitors by using diffusion of a membrane (fuel cells can be built on this principle) Here is a link (of-course the temperatures they are talking about are out of range, but still...) http://www.dechema.de/f-und-i/europa/englisch/erns t/i_er5d02.htm

  84. Serious Problem : What of Dilution? by RobertFisher · · Score: 2

    Perhaps I am missing something here, but from the short description, it sounds as if the concept is to put millions of "free floating" tiny robots into the ocean, where they would communicate amongst each other and thence to the outside world. Each robot would have negligably little computational power, but in combination, the robots could have a great impact.

    However, it is easy to see that if the robots are indeed freely floating, and are allowed to drift around for long periods of time, they will become separated. Indeed, given enough time, the equilibrium density of robots reached will simply be the number of robots over the entire oceanic volume! The robots will have become so far removed from their neighbors that they will have become useless. Unless the robots are physically tethered together, it is difficult for me to see how they will remain close to one another for any significant duration. And if they are physically tethered, in esseence to form a larger body, why bother with all of the nanoscale complexity? Why not just monitor using conventional silicon technology attached to floating buoys?

    It seems like the grant will be pushing nanoscale technology further, which is great for everyone, but I have serious reservations as to their chosen application. It would seem to me that an application where the probes would be fixed in location (in human tissue, for instance) would be a better application

    Bob

    --
    Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
  85. evaporation? by CrazyDwarf · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure on the scales involved, but will the robots be small enough that they might rise up with water that is evaporating? Then they could fall with rain in a field in Kansas somewhere, get picked up by some plants that the farmers there are growing, shipped to the grocery store...

    Sounds kind of like the fish thing mentioned in an earlier post, but I'd like to see what they would say to it.

    With people already upset about genetic engineering in the food supply, this would probably be too much for them. They might faint while eating a pretzel.

    --
    It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
  86. Wow. Art comes to life. by sharkey · · Score: 2

    Sounds a great deal like Roger Meyers Sr.'s movie, "Scratchtasia". I can just see billions of axe-wielding, mouse-shaped nanobots hacking away at each individual cell in our bodies, causing rapid decay into dust.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  87. "Swarms Of Tiny Robots" Doing *anything* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes a great headline, but that's about all

  88. Solution to Pollution is Dilution by oldbox · · Score: 1

    The relative amount of robots to water (in ppm) would have to be incredibly high to even cause concern for pollution levels. Besides, most of the robotic parts will be made of silicon or aluminum, not really a significant toxin, it would be equivalent to ingesting sand and a little rust. IMHO a system like this would be completely cost ineffective. More complicated larger multi-sensory instruments placed at strategic depths and distances from a pollution source would be fine coupled with a robust statistical analysis of the data. As a microbiologist I believe it would be easier to determine what harmful microorganisms are lurking in water sampled from these sites than to have unique specalized robots determining individual species. Hurrah for the technology, but maybe they should rethink the application.

  89. I can see the signs now... by xpccx · · Score: 1


    Microscopic robots on duty, pee in the pool at your own risk!

    --Management

  90. Nanotechnology schmanotechnology. by enkidu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This kind of unscientific bullshitting by unqualified people just kills me. There are many fundamental flaws in this project. Here's a few

    • Power, how will these nanobots power themselves and their radio transmitters?
    • Underwater radio, to put it bluntly, high frequency underwater radio transmission doesn't work.
    • Telemetry, so how are these beasties going to figure out where they are? Or what direction their getting radio signals from?
    • Propulsion, the smaller you get, the harder it is to move around (especially in water). This objection can be offset by stating that the nanobots will rely on diffusion to spread. This leads to another problem.
    • Organization, how are they going to maintain integrity and or coherency in communication? AFAIK, no one has built/simulated large numbers (>10^6) of cooperative robotic groups. I hope I'm wrong though.

    Here's an example of the kind of rigorous though that has gone into this research proposal. Here we have "David Caron, professor of biological sciences and a co-investigator on the project" stating:

    ocean robots needn't be terribly complicated or powerful to be useful. A single robot might sense only whether the water is fresh or saline and communicate by a faint radio signal only with other robots closest to it, which would then relay the information to other robots in the network linked to the Internet by still more robots.

    Oh is that all it is? And who says that a robot that can do all of that isn't complicated or powerful? And pray, do you know how well radio signals travel in water? Here's a hint, the US Navy subs only use it for extremely short range communication and extremely long range communication (with frequencies in the 10's of Hz range). Oh and did you know that your antenna needs to be proportional to the wavelength you are going to transmit and recieve? Your nano-bots are going to be how big? How are you going to figure out where the signal is coming from? direction finding? GPS?

    And pray tell, how are you going to power these microscopic wonders (which need to transmit radio waves mind you)? Remember volume shrinks by the cube.

    This is the one that really had me rolling on the floor

    The USC researchers will first build small robots that will move, sense and communicate while tethered in a tank of water in a laboratory. They will gradually progress to building and controlling increasingly larger numbers of increasingly smaller freely moving robots. The end goal of the project will be to create robots that are as small as the microorganisms that they seek to monitor.

    Is that all? So, we just need to duplicate the functionality of bateria without the self-duplication but with added radio communication, telemetry (to figure out where signals are coming from), and data acquisition. Oh and social/aggregate organization. Piece o' cake. Is next Tuesday good for you?

    --

    There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
    -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  91. Obligatory Beowulf Joke (actually funny) by MulluskO · · Score: 2
    • <===== Beowulf Cluster pictured here.
    --

    Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
  92. Two more books about water [mis]use by FredBaxter · · Score: 1

    If you liked Reisner, you should read Norris Huntley Jr.'s The Great Thirst, an amazingly well-researched and thoughtfully written book, and it only really LOOKS like a tome. A more radical, leftist perspective on the issue of water in the American West is Donald Worster's Rivers of Empire; I don't agree with all his conclusions, but he raises several interesting and very fundamental points.

    God bless a liberal arts education!

    -FB
    "Some day I will rule the world. Until then I will rule this plate of peas." -FB

  93. Almighty internet by I.+M.+Bur · · Score: 1

    From the article: "A single robot might sense only whether the water is fresh or saline and communicate by a faint radio signal only with other robots closest to it, which would then relay the information to other robots in the network linked to the Internet by still more robots."

    So crackers will have yet another challenge! I can see those headlines: "Tiny robots are attacking mankind!"

    ;)

  94. Best use for GoreTex by Krees · · Score: 1
    Sandia National Labs is working on similar devices (at least similar in purpose if not execution) for constantly monitoring water and air for harmful substances, including "agents that are analogous to nerve gas."

    Where does the GORE-TEX fit in? The sensors for the devices need to be able to monitor water and/or air without being damaged by water, so they're put in waterproof packages with GORE-TEX covering the openings. The water stays out; the vapors to be tested pass through.

    Full article can be found at Small Times.

  95. Why so small? by Jayman2 · · Score: 1

    If these robots are to be used for monitoring oceans, i do not see why you need them that small in the first place.
    Ocean currents are pretty large scale phenomenas, which are often more vertically variable that horisontally. So making a few (a few thousand anyway) fairly large sized buoys which can sink to a pre-determined depth and surface to transmit data on regualr intervals (which would also allow for re-calibration of position). Such buoys are already in progress and limited use for profiling temperature and salinity. I don't see why they can't be equipped with pollutant sensors instead.
    There is still the power problem to solve as the floats in use has a limited lifetime though.
    In addition the amount of data that would be generated from vast quantities of nano-bots would still require analysis...less of a problems, but enough to create terrabytes of junk data.

    --
    -.sig sauer-
  96. Well, all I can say is... by msouth · · Score: 2

    ...if that's not a reason to quit drinking sea water, I don't know what is!

    --
    Liberty uber alles.
  97. Bait by boatboy · · Score: 1

    You may call them nanobots, I call them fish bait.