Slashdot Mirror
Nanotechnology, US Government, and Secrecy
Glenn Reynolds has written an interesting, albiet a bit speculative, in regards to the role of the US Government in the possible quieting of nanotechnology research. As Gleen points out, there's some good pre-existing guidelines to research as well, from the Foresight Institute.
Has anyone ever thought that nanotechnology can be used for a whollllle lot of evil. I mean, in theory, it could used as Syphon Filter or Fox-Die (anyone else notice those games had the same plot?). A programmable virus, effectively destroying whatever they want. The UN has mentioned that idealy 80% of the world's population would be killed.. This could be a means to do that.
The government wants to quash this for a good reason.
We can't all be beautiful people walking around in skintight suits with Borg implants in our faces.
Tim
They're planting nanomechanical bugs all over the place, in people, around places, it's a total conspiracy, I swear to GOD! The resistance told me all about it when I stumbled onto some stuff onl...
Oops, my bad. That was just the two months of Majestic I played.
... Or was it?
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
is that it's not^H^H^H easily noticed. But my bloodstream could NOT be chock full of nanoprobes right now, subtley altering me, possibly even changing my thoughts and what I'm NOT typing right now, without me even NOT realizing it. It could NOT lead to some kind of cognitive dissonance where people are being told one thing but they DON'T believe they heard something completely different.
The future of nanotech is a HAPPPY HAPPY scary world.
See Stanislav Lem, "Invincible", "Fiasco"...
The evil in such technology is that after some time you can lose control after it...
Sad that defense is involved in it...
Glenn Reynolds has written an interesting, albiet a bit speculative, in regards to the role of the US Government in the possible quieting of nanotechnology research.
Um, is it just me, or is this sentence missing something, like what exactly was written?
Head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums...
First of all its not like any slashdotters are hacking nano in their basements here, we talking about the majority being govt funded university projects in the first place, this is no different that a half a dozen other similar things the govt has done.
We slashdotters for the most part are tech-heads, the same guys that a couple of generations before came up with dynamite and made nuclear fission a possibility, neither in its inception was anything other than an experiment or theory, and YES it is the use that becomes evil no the technology, but thats our problem, we are blinded by our views and say but its just science.
Its science at a crossroads, where VERY easily it could be turned for purposes other than the utopian ones us slashdotters first envision, we see medical uses, technololgical uses, another may very well see a quicker undetectable way of killing as many people they can while inflicting the most pain and suffering.
In the end there is no difference between a quelch on this technology and nuclear science. It will go on, the same people will be doing it but under different guidlines of research and collaboration. Since the Govt. is footing the bill for the majority of this research (over 90% at this point) isnt it fair they decide how its disclosed ?
I do.....
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Help! Someone please remove these evil nanobots from my bloodstream before they....achphbtptp....There are no such things as nanobots, it's all a conspiracy.
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
Openness is a competitive tool, but now that the
U.S. is clearly by itself as the worlds only superpower,
its looking at errecting barriers to entry against
competitors aspiring to catch up and surpass. Forget
Europe here, think ahead a generation and look at
India & China. We are talking about technology as
a strategic asset, not just militarily but economically.
And I think it won't be just a nanotech thing.
Amazing how this trend runs counter to movements
(enabled by the internet!) for scientists to be
more open and abondon traditional publishers for
easily accessable electronic publishing!
As an student who will be entering grad school in materials engineering this fall with the intention of doing research in nanotech type things (opto electronics and molecular electronics) this is mostly horseshit. (also doing research on constructing photonic band gap materials currently)
The state of nanotech (a word that is surely to become a buzzword more overused any before) is such that no useful devices will come from current research for years. Compare it to the creation of the mechanical computer. The ideas are there certainly, but the execution in a useful mannar are long off. We just cannot control the exact placement of single atoms well enough, and possibly never will due to thermal energy (kT being larger than the intermolecular forces)
Certainly there are and will be uses for nanotech in the near future, but none will be NEMS (nano electro mechanical systems) or other machinations or devices. Also it will be years before any 'intelligent' device could be created that could do more than just move from one place to another.
Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about all that is in the field (comp sci, materials, bio, chem, physics) of nanotech, but it really is in an infancy. The current threat of anything being used harmfully is as far away as anything being use for good. There will be some things that will be 'censored' but those will be the monumental jumps in logic and technology that make the science become engineering, and useful products.
to email me: take my
Nanotech has some great possibilities, but some of the biggest advances are also the biggest problems.
Like he mentioned - nanotech could "cure" old age. What, then, will we do with the rapid population increase? We don't have the resources to handle that many people. Move into space, perhaps. And what happens to our rights when an "old" person decides they now want to grow old and die? Suicide is illegal here, might that not also be? Can you imagine being imprisoned for life if life meant forever?
Also, electronics are succeptible to electromagnetic fields. No MRIs for the people with nanotech running around inside them. And if you stand too close to the microwave or have a cellphone? It's bad enough with a pacemaker. What happens when nanotech is used to compensate for brian deterioration? Lead hats?
Presumably the technology won't ever self-replicate. That would be a nightmare. Imagine the resources it would consume. We would need huge processing power in tiny spaces to prevent deaths from over-replication.
Don't get me wrong. Nanotechnology has some great potential benefits - going where no doctor could safely go, curing terminal diseases, destroying viruses, and much more. But at first, all those advances will come at a pretty high price.
It has been said that science and discovery is neither good nor evil, but scientists have to look at the potential consequences of their actions. Both Einstein and Oppenheimer were opponents of nuclear weapons after they had been created. A few quotes to close:
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Without the sarcasm :)
.35 cents to mail it in for the person who lost it?
, I trust them more than I trust an individual not supervised by anybody but himself.
Think, if you were alone, walking down the street and saw a hundred dollar bill attached to a phone bill or electric bill, would you keep the hundred dollars, or would you spend the
What would you do if you were with your parents?
I can rely on the Govt to an extent, when there is no one else to look to. I don't trust corperations, they have too many benifits, at least the Govt has reporters and alarmists among them to at least keep them more honest than the average CEO or rich "terrorist" backing the research.
In a perfect world I would'nt need to ask anybody to watch over us, scientists could research and discover anything they wanted, no fear of misuse or terrorism. but this is not a perfect world. So my choices are to try and keep things safe a little longer, so that we may have the chance to see the percect world where we can all be as free and idealistic as we want. When we can respect eachother implicitly.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
seriously.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Yes.
Can it be less trustworthy?
Yes.
Details matter. Which government? Which independent body? What's the structure of each? Who gets to decide who's involved in either? What are the safeguards? How well are the safeguards guarded?
"Quis cusotdiet ipsos custodes?"
I thought the analogy with 1950s comptuers was interesting, but I think a more appropriate analogy would be 1930s computing -- we're still a long way off.
And did anyone else note that Reynolds of the article didn't cite any sources for these "rumors" of a "nanotechnology clampdown"? Bad journalism + ignorance = hysteria.
Some of us are trying to eat lunch...
Best Slashdot Co
I've been working with nanotech for 2 years now. I don't understand people like this, suspecting the government of quieting our technology. We are allowed to freely... KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK
Just a minute, let me get the door...
403 - forbidden
ACCOUNT DELETED
Like any other technology, it is not good or evil in and of itself. It just is. What people do with it is either good or evil.
I must admit, there certainly are some scary possibilities with nanotech. Programmable viruses (as mentioned), which could be used to target specific groups or people (program by DNA); imperceptible tracking devices; and any other whacked idea you can come up with.
But there are also some productive possibilities as well. That same DNA programming could be used to detect cancer cells. Or imagine nano-surgical bots, fixing organs without ever having to open up the body again. The possibilities are endless here too.
The point is, the technology is going to go forward anyway. It's not like the U.S. is the only nation on earth researching nanotech. The question is: What do we do with it? Does it remain secret? A potential government monopoly? That would, in my opinion, be worse. The best way to discover the constructive and destructive possibilities of nanotech is to openly explore them; not to let the government say, "Well, that's a potential weapon. No research down that route." As I mentioned before, the same techniques that could allow programmable viruses could also allow DNA-targeted therapies, attacking cancers, bacteria, and (natural) viruses. So what happens then? Does fear trump potential?
That's just what I think. But then again, I don't really know what I'm talking about. I'm just winging it (ten years and counting),
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
Especially this early in the morning.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
The UN has mentioned that idealy 80% of the world's population would be killed.
Do you have some kind of reference for this statistic or are you just scare-mongering? When you post something far-fetched like that you should include a hyperlink to some corroborating evidence on the web.
From my perspective the entire article by Reynolds was largely hype and scare-mongering. He makes references to rumors and whispers of a military crackdown on nanotech but never mentions where he's getting this stuff from. For all I know, he could have overheard a bunch of tie-dye shirt wearing hippies down at the local coffee-shop/pseudo-intellectual-hangout.
That having been said, I ask is it even possible for the government to suppress something as big as nanotech? A recent issue of Scientific American had a multi-article feature on nanotech and the possible uses. It just seems that this is going to be too big and wide-ranging for even the Pentagon to be able to control. Yeah, he cites some examples in past history of how militaries have tried to suppress "essential" technologies but things are different now. It was easier in "the old days" for the government to control information. With the amount of free-flowing data that we have today I doubt that the government would be able to do a very good job of controlling any exciting new technology. Yes, I understand the important role the Pentagon plays in determining what research gets done. But these people aren't idiots. They realize the best way for the US to gain the lead in nanotech is to just let scientists run for awhile. Maybe in the future they'll try to steer the direction of research. But until I start seeing some evidence of this, I disregard Reynolds and all the rest as revving up the hype machine
GMD
watch this
pronoblem
Why do nanobots have to be metallic and reliant upon the whims of EM?
Virii and bacterium have been doing fine for millions of years without caring about magnetics except where it was an advantage.
Cheese and yogurt, as an example, are produced by the action of special natural nanobots that react and process milk into portable storable food products. Beer and wine, as well.
Nothing says nanobots have to be metallic at all.
GPL Deconstructed
Who will regulate the uses if the creation cannot be monitored?
Who will know of it's discovery untill it's being used? Perhaps already too late.
That's why we have neuclear testing restrictions, no one wants the results of that research. some scientists want to do it for pure science, but the Govt. has (wisely, in my honest opinion) restricted those kinds of tests to safeguard the safety of the people from results (and in some cases the actual tests, ie: fallout, exposure, etc.) that cannot be reasonably assured as safe and predictable. We don't know what we will release, and the cost to the whole of the human race is too great to justify the persuance of such (possibly dangerous) research.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
In my previous post i mentioned how our government spends very little on nano technology. The reason is most people arent ready for even computer technology. Look at our laws and how our government and copyright system refuses to change with the technology.
Old laws dont work anymore, its time to change.
This is exactly why we need to educate the people to a much higher standard.
Most of our money should be on building much better schools, we need a complete reform of the school system so school creates people who are free thinkers instead of bots who work in an office.
More and more, our mental abilities will matter.
Nano technology is good, we should put hundreds of billions of dollars into this, but if we are to accept these advances in technology we must advance socially as well..
No more wars.
No more creating terrorists (like bin laden)
We need to find a way to handle oppressed people in the third world, so they dont all become terrorists.
I'm personally ready for nano technology, I think alot of people on slashdot may be ready, but your average idiot is not ready.
I'm hoping, if we spend vast amounts of money on education, it will cause less people to be ignorant, In a society filled with nano technolgy we cannot tolerate ignorance anymore, a KKK member will be able to destroy all minorities in an instant, a Nazi will be able to destroy all jews in an instant.
The only thing we can do, is educate ignorant people in such a way that they are less likely to do stupid things.
Some people we wont be able to educate at all, but at least by building better schools we give it a shot.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Car manufacturers are researching ways to make cars drive more efficiently (increasing the likelihood of long-term rampant roadkilling sprees) and increase their top speed (maximizing the damage done when one of these murderous machines hits its target).
Did I mention that car ownership is on the rise? Did I ALSO mention that selling cars is a huge industry? I see conspiracies everywhere, trying to promote the pro-car lobbies!
Something must be done. Write your political representatives and notify them that -- along with this newfangled "nanotechnology" thing -- you want the car lobby stopped.
-----------------------
You are what you think.
Our government is obssessed with power.
Nano technology = the ultimate weapon
You and I see nano technology as a way to extend our lives and make our lives better.
Nano Technology is good, I support it, i think we should be spending hundreds of billions on nano technology and things like it.
We also should be spending hundreds of billions on reforming the school system.
Theres always ignorant people, the problem with public schools, the current system isnt built to create mature intelligent thinkers, its built to create good hard workers who respect authority.
Thats good for a labor based society where you can be dumb as hell as long as you obey orders. As society changes to a more intellectual society, we need to teach children to think for themselves. we need to redesign school in a way so that it teaches them to think for themselves.
College seems modern in this respect but highschool and middleschool need complete reform, kids are just doing work from text books and following scripts,
you dont learn by following the script, you learn by creating the script.
What we need to teach in schools now, responsibility, maturity, the ability to think for yourself, the ability to teach yourself and teach others, and the ability to learn from others.
Ways to do this, Set up the school system so that students teach other students, set up the school system so students are often required to learn about something on their own without being guided by any teacher, get rid of tests and exams and use the portfolio system which judges a student by the quality of the results of their work and not how many small facts they memorize, and last, give the children state of the art technology, let highschool kids learn and do experiments with nano technology, let them learn about bio tech in highschool if they choose.
By putting more money into the school system it will allow schools to buy the equipment needed to teach kids about these very important and dangerous technologies.
If we keep doing things the way we do it now, we will create a bunch of drones who cant think for themselves, and eventually some intelligent terrorist will decide to attack us with a nano virus and no one will be smart enough to defend themselves from it.
Instead by educated everyone about nano technology, everyone will be able to develop ways ot defend themselves from it, even if this means everyone creates various nano anti virii or develops a way to completely destroy nano bots such as EMP fields
Education and Research is the key, we should be spending the majority of our money on this.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Oh sure, they'd probaly run simulations with the code first, and stuff. But SOMETHING always makes it through QC, and when a minor mishap could destroy all life on the planet, you REALLY want to be sure.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How long will it be before the real (certifiable) paranoids start claiming that it's nanobugs making their lives hell instead of radio waves?
Will the dust mask replace the tinfoil hat as a symbol of paranoia?
I think it will be interesting to see how quickly this disseminates into the insane. Florid schizophrenic (hallucinating) paranoiacs weren't talking about being manipulated by radio waves a hundred years ago.
Since schizophrenia often begins in adolescence, there are probably some like this already. On the other hand nanotech doesn't have the near universal recognition that radio does.
No, I'm not on the government payroll trying to discredit anyone. This respirator is for my allergies.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
I can think of a great example, I think a new intravenous delivery device based on the MEMs blood sugar monitoring devices with the bloodless micro-needles could be the answer to the vast majority of problems associated with drug abuse.
Most of the clinically documentable physical health concerns associated with drug abuse have to do with damage to the organs through which the drugs are administered and with overdose. An internally regulated device that went directly into the blood stream without exposing the user, or those around the user to the user's blood would be a panacea in my book.
But to people morally against the use of drugs rather than strictly concerned with the health effects, such a device would be the devil's own tool. For the same reason that I see such a recreation device as a promising panacea that could make even hard drugs socially acceptable and thus much more manageable, others would say is was the mark of the beast etc etc.
So, in deciding what is abusive and what is not, you get into some rather grey areas. It's easy to say don't do bad things, but getting down to brass tacks on what's bad and what's good is not quite that simple when you're dealing with laege groups of people such as nations and planets.
Even the notion championed by foresight of universal prosperity could be hard for many die hard capitalists to come to terms with.
Texas Instruments has clearly shook up the projector world with it's Digital Video Processor MEMs chips. How long before Taiwan tools up to starts making those in mainland China. What will that do to projection TV makers and projector LCDs? Entire markets can be disrupted quickly by new technologies on a micro scale.
Who knows? And what's taking so damn long? All I really care about is, when can I get a six pack of six second release Cocaine dermal patches and a few joints for me and the wife at 7-11 so I can go home and watch big screen movies from the hot tub in full effect. Is that too much to ask?
We are educated commputer users here on slashdot, you dont see any of us getting infected by the computer virus, you see dumb people who dont understand computers getting infected.
The solution to this problem is to educate all computer users, and no one will get infected by virii.
The same solution works for Nano Technology, Kids should be learning about nano technology in highschool.
We need highschool reform badly, kids are still being taught einstiens theories, most kids dont even know about super string theory, neither do most adults,
You cant teach kids from text books that are 30 years old or older.
Kids shouldnt even be learning from text books, kids should learn to learn, and learn to teach, I didnt learn this in public school, however i went to an alternative school which taught in this manner and thats where i learned to think for myself.
Our schools create zombies who USE technology which they dont understand.
Schools must change big time, technology shouldnt be slowed down because the RIAA and copyright laws dont know how to handle it, laws must change, the RIAA must adapt or go out of business.
Its that simple, if people want to share music via napster, you cant hold back the technology, the best thing you can do is change the laws to adapt to it.
Old people running this country dont understand change, they dont know how to adapt, thats the problem with having all old people in the government.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
What I see as the real beauty of nanotechnology is this: if nanotechnology is able to scale-down well enough to allow for generalized molecular manipulation (which is definitely a controversial point), or further than that - generalized atomic m/subatomic manipulation, the rules which we use to govern information will have application to physical reality.
That's a pretty bold claim, let me explain. Let's presume that such molecular/atomic manipulators would be computer-guided, I don't think that this is in dispute. Furthermore, let us assume that such techniques will allow for the production of much more powerful computers, capable of storing and manipulating the vast amounts of data necessary to model physical objects in molecular or atomic detail. Given these points, all that will be needed to convert an idea into a physical manifestation will be software, energy, and raw materials.
Now, given that these things come to pass, we'll face a situation in which script-kiddies kill, DDoS is warfare, and P2P applications redefine the nature of culture (shared knowledge). If software can manipulate the physical dimension, the same rules which govern the Internet and digital technology will apply universally.
The preventative measures we come up with today will set precedent for the measures which will be used to avert disaster in this hypothetical future, it would be wise to treat computers as we would treat citizens when we define new security protocols - we may end up living under them ourselves.
IF what the author is suggesting were true (and that's a big if) than this is neither unusual nor bad. The US military knows better than to think they can surpress a powerful technology forever. Ultimately any such policy would fail, while developing it can lead to great boons. The key for the military is to stay several steps ahead of everyone else. That means conducting their own development and classifying it until somebody else figures it out, extensive espionage to make sure no one else gets ahead of them, and the occasional suppression of the commercial sector.
The author mentions what a chilling effect it would have been if the military had suppressed computers - handily ignoring the fact that computers were originally developed by and for the military almost exclusively. The situation today is that most computers are quite harmless and consequently allowed to do their own thing - but when software or hardware gets too powerful (strong crypto and supercomputers, for instance) the regulations kick in.
The catch is that some technologies are so powerful that simply being ahead in the game is not enough - you have to restrict it entirely. Nuclear is the classic example, since even a small bomb can devestate at an enormous scale. Biological and Nanotechnological are potentially even worse, due to the small resources required for the former and the extreme precision of the latter. For all the shortcomings and violence of the US military, they know their place - serving the US government, not running it. And the US government isn't interested in ruling the world, just keeping it under control so we can do our thing. I'd rather they had the upper hand than I would China, Microsoft, Israel, Greenpeace, Switzerland, or Pfizer.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Either we keep this system and alot of people are out of a job, or no one has to work anymore
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
It seems the DARPA guys read a lot of SciFi too.
Topic include:
I'm posting anonymously because I am PI for two MEMS projects for the military.
The RIAA killed napster because it threanted to change the system, change the laws, and advance technology.
You see, our government doesnt want the system to ever change, but a system has to adapt or it will become obsolete.
We are using a system thats thousands of years old, from back in the times of rome, its advanced very little sense then, we have been given freedom of speech and other freedoms however our laws dont fully follow, copyright for example is not even constitutional because its a form of censorship.
Face it, we have been moving backwards not forwards. Until we as a society advance, all the technology inn the world wont help us.
The gov and RIAA should have embraced napster, napster is what the people want, its the new technology, instead they tried to kill it.
Now nano technology is being threatened. The reason? It, like napster will change the system completely, but unlike napster which only changes the music system, nano technology would completely change the whole economic system of the world.
So, will governments do whats good for the people, or whats good for them?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
knowledge kills, we need to have equal knowledge.
If the common man knows about nano technology, defending against it will be easi, there may be a suit which can do it, maybe emp waves or static electricity
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Glenn Reynolds has written an interesting, albiet a bit speculative, in regards to the role of the US Government in the possible quieting of nanotechnology research.
Time for some sentence structure review. Take out the comma segment in the beginning of the sentence, and we get "Glenn Reynolds has written an interesting in regards to the role..." Has written an interesting what?
Come on, Slashdot! If you want people to pay for this damn site, you really ought to at least proof read your friggin' postings. Sheesh.
Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
Bullcrap, admit it, you haven't really checked have you. Until you really check I can't read your the rest of you post...
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
I work on nano technology, and at a secret government lab no less. So maybe I can say something intelligent. First, its pretty scary how misinformed the commentary here. what is nanotech? actually there is no such thing. its a marketing buzzword I put in my proposals to get them funded. One of the main funding sources for NANOtech is going to be the department of energy and the National Institutes fo health. nobody got upset when we all were talking about "microtechology" for the last 20 years. And that was an amorphous term too. And why anyone would think the governement would want to supress this is beyond me. With NIH and SBIR funding for this at record levels the answer is quite the reverse. The problem is that many of the nano-tech fronteirs are not ready for commercialization. thus Much of the funding is going to be governmental till certain breakthroughs happen. Certainly where it is looking viable, such as carbon nano-tube applications industry is jumping all over it. as for nanobot viruses. go buy yourself a slurpee and rent another startrek video gomer. good old biological viruses will do just fine for now and the forseable future. No one with any sense takes nanoviruses seriously. In fact its by studying cells and genomes and, most importantly, protein complexes that we will learn how to make self assembling molecular machines. and were no where along that path. Want to read up on this. see the DOE web page on the Genomes-to-life program. that's what that is all about. what science is on the verge of is using self assembling compounds to make hyper sesnistive transducers. like noses and such. Someday we will be able to clear landmines by sniffing them out. and even that is not practical yet.
Current US-government research is becoming more heavily funded by the military. The near-term application seems to be sensors for various biological and chemical threats. That makes sense - one tiny nanotechnology unit is useful in that application. There's ongoing interest in a DNA reader, one of the obvious nanotechnology applications. Again, single units, perhaps assembled with a STM, work for that.
Self-replicating nanobots are still a long way off. That's the application that gets everybody excited, but it's hard to do.
Is that what it's called?
Anyway, scale aside, a machine doesn't have to be metallic or ceramic for it to work.
There are different problems and issues with biological machinery than with robotic machinery, on the cellular scale, and I'm not sure that either one can be claimed to be 'out of infancy', though perhaps in strict comparison with nanotech, biologics is more primitive...
I don't think we have a solution in either technology that can repair a genetic disorder yet, though we already have biologic agents that can kill people already.
GPL Deconstructed
It can't be that most of what we claim to be able to do one day is, in fact, impossible, with a good body of theory demonstrating that truth. If we are going to keep getting grants (and, God willing, venture capital someday) we have to keep our buzzword hot.
The government is really interested in what we're doing, but wants us to keep real quiet about it. The government is suppressing us--yeah, that's the ticket. The government is suppressing us. Oops, I wasn't supposed to say that (wink, wink).
Now, how can we get the message out? Who has watched so much Star Trek that they'll believe any damn thing is possible? I've got it!
At the high-school level, I tend to agree with you. On the other hand, children at grade-school level are still in need of many basic skills that require lots of drill/practice/memorization.
It's great to be a "free thinker", but you also need a core set of knowledge to base your ideas on. Otherwise, you end up with utopian dreamers, and people who frustrate themselves with failed attempts at achieving their goals, simply because they don't have the basic science and math needed to do it properly.
I think it's best to get as much memorization and boring drill practice out of the way early in one's life. Until you reach a certain age, your mind isn't really ready to deal with more abstract concepts anyway. Use this to the best advantage by teaching handwriting, multiplication tables, phonics, spelling, etc. when the child is real young. (For that matter, parents of newborns should be reading to them and spelling to them. Sure, they're so young it seems pointless, but all those sounds they're hearing you speak aren't lost on them. Their brains are already hard at work, trying to process all of this to prepare them for speaking the language.)
Sure, until now a lot of the work was genetic engineering, where the goal was the end product; but with the research into DNA and genetic computing, and genetic chemical sensors, the line between organic and mechanic is growing thinner.
A virus that makes you ill vs a nanoprobe that makes you ill; which is simpler?
A virus that fixes your cancer vs a nanoprobe that fixes your cancer; which is simpler?
A bacterium that repairs a ruined liver, vs a nanoprobe that repairs a ruined liver; which is simpler?
A bacterium you switch on and off with adrenalin, or some artificially inserted compound (like caffeine) to enhance bloodflow to the muscles, vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
A bacterium you switch on and off to increase production of adrenaline, endorphines, and other fight/flight compounds, vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
A bacterium you switch on and off to generate pain killing compounds vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
A bacterium which generates clot enhancing compounds in some situations (careful of the heart, of course!) while producing clot reducing compounds in other situations (in the heart, near the brain, etc) vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
Not everything is easily done with biologics; nor is everything easily done with nanotech. Each have their own strengths.
GPL Deconstructed
How dare you modify your own body chemistry!
It's not offtopic - it's just another expression of the paranoia expressed here.
This is exactly what happened in the UK after WWII. After building the world's first digital electronic computerw, the Colossi, they were destroyed and kept secret by the orders of Churchill. The result: the US took the lead in computing.
-- SIGFPE
Put simply, this article is utter horseshit. This should be obvious to anyone to begin with, since the author repeatedly mentions the fact that he has no evidence to back up his claims, and the article turns into a polemic on "why it would have been bad for the government to restrict computers". In fact, the only content that I can see in this article is that he thinks it would be bad for scientists to ignore a new technology. Wow, that's a controversial opinion. Let me be a little more explicit: This article is simply muckraking, and has little to no evidence backing up any of its claims.
The facts are that the money flowing into nanotech is just unbelievable, and a good portion of this is from the U.S. government, through agences such as the NSF, etc. (I won't attempt to hide the fact that this is exactly why the group I am involved with is trying to find good mathematical problems in the field.) Several national agencies have specific nanotech initiatives, and, consequently, the number of good people working in this field is exploding. Of course it is impossible to know what is being done that is classified (that's the point), but the amount of open science being done is
Also (and this is somewhat tangential), I think most people have a bit of a misconception about what nanotech is, because I certainly did. The impression I had a few years ago was that engineers are building some really small robots to do stuff on small scales (like in that book by Neal Stephenson, I forget the title, but it might have been his second?). Anyway, this is very much what is not going on right now (since this is far in the future). Essentially, the successful research being done in this field is two major groups: material science and microbiology. People are finding ways to build structures at the nanometer scale (but very simple ones, like tubes and boxes... no machines as of yet). People are also studying "biological motors", for example very complex proteins in our cells which convert energy to complex mechanical operations. Long story short, the problems are not nearly as sexy as is portrayed in the media (which should be no surprise), although they are very interesting, IMHO, from a physical and chemical viewpoint. (Not to oversimplify, there is work that is being done that doesn't fall into either of these two categories, but these are the biggest two.) Anyway, what I'm saying is that even what the engineers are doing right now is building things which, for the most part, have no specific purpose, but are just simple building blocks for something we may one day build.
Disclaimer (if I need it): the above does not reflect the opinion of any organization with which I am affiliated, or the opinion of the university to which I am attached. It is simply the personal opinion of a working mathematician.
Come on, give it up, that's
Not everyones brains are designed for that.
I think up until middleschool, kids should learn the basics. Once they learn to read and write, they should learn to think.
memorizing multiplications are pointless when you have calculators
soon reading may be pointless too, our schools need to focus on whats important, alot of skills being developed are skills no one ever uses and will forget anyway, so it was a waste of time.
As technology advances, so should schools, we have calculators, why waste all these years in school teaching them to do math manually as if they'll ever need to do this?
All this time they could be learning things like computers, and logic based math, most math now you need a calculator to do, and besides the really basic stuff like how to add, and subtract, you dont really need to do the other stuff in your head.
How many people divide fractions in their head? if you have to do it on paper, then its no diffrent than doing it on a calculator, so why teach them to do it on paper at all?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
No, essential that defense is involved in it.
I liken it to submarines (one of which I served on). You can say submarines are evil, cowardly, nasty, yadda, yadda. That isn't going to stop your enemies (current, future, potential) from building them, sinking your shipping, parking them off your coast with missles, etc.
Or you can build your own submarines, go down there, find them, and blow them apart. Works better than trying to ban them, or something.
It is vitally important that work on defense involving nanotechnology is done. I agree there.
But the part that worries me is that the US military will make the same mistake they always tend to make - that "defense" equals "offense". That defending this country means making weapons that can kill millions of people.
Nanotechnology does not have to yield the same old killing-machine weapons that they're used to turning out. Shields and other defensive mechanisms would not only be possible, but necessary, and by far the best route.
If they want to keep other countries from sending molecular machine spies into the US, they can do it by putting up networks of protective machines that will destroy unauthorized machines, instead of threatening to turn their country into goo.
I just hope they look in this direction instead of the offensive direction - rapid proliferation of offensive nanotechnology weapons will make the cold war over nuclear weapons seem tame.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Theres lots to be learned from the young people as well.,
As much as theres young ignorant people, there are old ignorant people.
Being ignorant has nothing to do with your age or how much knowledge you have, ignorant is a way of thinking, not a lack of knowledge.
Take the Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, he may be 50-60 years old, he may have went to school at Yale, he may be very successful in the world, but hes still an ignorant racist leader of the KKK.
Hitler, a military genius, was ignorant as hell.
Bin Laden, highly educated, a genius, but ignorant as hell.
Even some scientists are ignorant as hell, some of them dont believe theres life in space and make fun of people who search for it. These are scientists! And some of these scientists are old!
You can then find scientists on the other side of the spectrum, who believe everyone who tells them they were abducted by aliens often without the person having any proof, and these scientists are open minded to the point of accepting even lies as fact.
Ignorance has nothing to do with knowledge, nothing to do with age, and everything to do with your way of thinking. Ignorant people usually are easily influenced by others.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Theres no unlimited energy source so grey goo isnt as easy as you think. Also, you can EASILY make the nano machines malfunction assuming they use electricity, EMP would work. Shielding would work.
The elements like extreme cold and heat would work,
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
solar power should be used
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
"You jackass, all technology has a downside."
I don't agree with this guy either but having an opinion that is different from your own is not a good reason for you to be rude.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
*smirks*
Don't worry, missing the thrust of the argument isn't necessarily a bad thing. Surely, the article speaks about nano-technology, and surely there is a debatable issue here: Is nanotechnology a "Good Thing(TM)"; however, a more important point is also made by the article.
Namely, that the US Government may be causing real and irreprable harm to the interests of the United States of America (and don't forget, the US Government is not the USA) by limiting the advancement, research, and free (as in speech damnit) discussion of a new and important area of research.
As the article points out, the US did not become a^H the world superpower by having a larger military, or government; rather, the US out-witted the competitors by being (in the words of the article) "a more vibrant, [and] faster-learning society...." This is, and should always be the key to success in a rational and grown-up world.
I imagine that the FOX network's Glutton Bowl, once established as an international competition, will have a great deal of influence on the development of this technology.
: : :
Gatorade and Nike will be forced to find new ways into this (horizontally) growing field of competition, as traditional sports will become obsolete. Most potential athletes will grow morbidly obese with the rest of humanity, rendering competitive team sports infeasible. Olympic style solo competition will grow into a niche spectacle, a farce at best, until it is banned as to great a burden on EMT professionals who lack equipment for hundreds of simultaneous cases of congestive heart failure. The few remaining able-bodied athletes will be systematically mauled in the most gruesome incarnations of todays "extreme sports", until the last surviviors donate their bodies to volunteer in scientific experiments reminscient of medieval torture - to save themselves the horrors of hyperextreme sports. Over time, "gluttoral" sports edge out all archaic sports events, until the course of leads to a synergy between nanotech and sports, leading up to a frenzy of nanotechnology developments, garnering much public interest and corporate sponsership. Over the years Nike and Gatorade will both invest heavily in this technology, resulting in symbiotic gut-dwelling nanobots which can predigest massive quantities of otherwise inedible "food" (industrial waste) generously provided as sponsorship by Dow Chemical.
This will result in an arms race between Nike and Gatorade mirroring the effects of the various technology competitions that took place between the opponents of the Cold War. While MAD conditions tempered government military actions and kept our respective ways of life intact between the USSR and USA, no such geopolitical boundaries will be present or relevant in our current condition of multinational corporate rule. There are no "second strike" deterrents in a universal corporarchy plutocracy, so any accidental nanotechnological "first strike" will be global in consequence in a significant "grey goo" situation.
Despite these concerns, and their current unrelated fields of research, the respective images of both companies will seamlessly shift into their future roles. Gatorade's "Is it in you" campaign will morph into advocacy for biologically hosted nanobots performing medical service - orange sweat beads, neon green blood and luminous blue urine will be replaced by geometrically pleasing crystals and fractal configurations of liquid metal reminscient of Terminator 2. Gatorade will provide special edition formulas of their traditional beverage that supplement the electrolytes with their predigestive bioresident nanobots, allowing amature "gluttoral" competition, and hobbyist HGDs (Human Garbage Disposals) amongs those passing Gatorade's profiling tests.
Nike's "Just do it" meme, while subsumed into the "swish" logo, will still have subtle influence; it will take on new meaning as an amorphous representation of the capabilities embodied by the invisible nano-robots, which largely replace their current third-world labor market in manufacturing and production. Despite positive expectations from Human Rights Organizations, natives acclimated to western lifestyles suffer when the factories close. Desperate natives end up populating Nike's nano-labs, primarily as volunteers for their experiments. The survivors are among the world's first nan-droids, who end up devouring two-thirds of the contents of the Yucata Mountains before the accident involving an oil tanker full of nuclear waste. This unfortunate incident occurs not long after Nike bought out Exxon, which closes the promising waste disposal solution before it's completion. Various safety issues prevent the importation of Nike's nuclear core-crunching nandroid-people into the Northwestern Hemishpere, so the Nuclear waste disposal problem still doesn't have any end in sight.
I can't "speculate" any further as the Underground Secret Alliance is signaling me. Oh shit, it looks like Pepsi-Coca (subsidiary of Gatorade) agents have chewed through the barrier protecting the Organic Society, who had granted me asylum. I've got to get out of here, and I can't keep typing while I climb, so Romeo-OverOut...MMCXLIV-214410081626aagvdteng::::
In different words, nanotechnology is a lot of hot air. It has utterly failed to deliver on its promises: universal replicators, and the like, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. The successes attributed to nanotechnology have instead come from traditional fields like materials science, physics, VLSI, micromachines, and molecular biology.
It is interesting that whenever people say something along the lines of "Terrorist-of-the-day is going to make nanotech to reduce Washington DC to it's component atoms" or "Grey Goo will devour the Earth", remember that, like Ninjas fighting Ninjas, nanotech can fight nanotech. Little bug wars happening inside your body and in the air you breathe...
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
But I'd still be careful about using "impossible", even if a few more are starting to realise that replicators are unlikely to provide a viable path forward, I still wouldn't be betting that we don't finish up with some strongly transformative nanotechnologies by 2050 or 2100.
It's just that our growing addiction to money and growth demands incredulous rationales to keep the pot boiling, so we talk about applications before we have demonstrated a working technology
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.