Slashdot Mirror


Viruses Enlisted as Nano-builders

Parsa writes "Nanotechnology is getting closer with genetically engineered viruses grabbing zinc sulfide and arranging themselves into highly organized structures. The story is here at MSNBC.com."

105 comments

  1. Frightening... by ceejayoz · · Score: 0

    Nanotech rather frightens me... one malicious "strain" (for lack of a better term) could have massive consequences - and how would we defend against it?

    1. Re:Frightening... by MisterBlister · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Fight one sci-fi cliche with another...

      In addition to building nanotech we need to build giant robots ala Voltron to defend us in case the nano-technology should get out of control.

    2. Re:Frightening... by andyh1978 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Look up the 'Gray Goo problem' on Google, there's plenty of discussion on this.

    3. Re:Frightening... by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't work - nanotech could attack a giant robot without the robot ever knowing. Bye bye Voltron :-p

    4. Re:Frightening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen that Outer Limits show where a man builts nano-bots to help repair damage to a person? They would be injected into the bloodstream and then would navigate to areas of damage. The way he stopped them was to electrocute himself and in the end that meant the loss of his own life. But in the end, the woman he had sex gets the nano bots....

    5. Re:Frightening... by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      Like missiles can shoot down other missiles and Jedis can duel other Jedis, Nanobots can destroy other nanobots.

      In The Future people might have their natural immune system and a Nanobot immune system to go with it.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    6. Re:Frightening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how would we defend against it?

      MORE Nanotech!

    7. Re:Frightening... by ironfroggy · · Score: 1

      Would we even need our original immune system? We're going to start living with all these nanoprobes doing better jobs than the rest of our system and we'll evolve without the original biology, just the nanosystems. Soon, we wont really exist anymore, the human race will disappear, completely improved and replaced with silicon. I can't wait.

    8. Re:Frightening... by aswang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While many science fiction writers have already painted in detail various doomsday scenarios with regards to nanotech gone out of control, and while it's possible that once they perfect this specific technology, it may very well go out of control, I think the fear of direct infection from these viruses is alarmist. These viruses are specifically bacteriophages, and so far, no bacteriophage has been known to also infect eukaryotic cells. Admittedly, it's probably not impossible, but it's probably the least of our worries.

    9. Re:Frightening... by jechoe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Woo hoo - one step closer to the Grey Goo end of the world. Just more proof that Mars needs women.

      --
      Push the envelope. Watch it bend.
    10. Re:Frightening... by kesuki · · Score: 2

      It would be interesting if Mars once held life that invented Nanotech virus that went rampantly out of control and devoured the world. Leaving the planet exhausted of resources, and covered with nanobots that over the millions of years decayed into red dust.
      The martians could have also had a war with the planet that is currently the asteroid belt and the decisive victory was a planet destroying weapon.

  2. Cure for the Common Nanotech by Thenomain · · Score: 0

    Hey, I could get my cyberwear on the cheap, this way. Just walk into a lab and snort the research. Excellent!

    --
    This now concludes our broadcast day.
  3. Hmm...viruses by NaCh0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    According to reports, Microsoft is already leading the field.

  4. The nano system by MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM · · Score: 1, Funny

    This question is of particular relevance to the American readers: do you think the nano system will eventually replace the feet, miles, etc you are using? If yes, then when?

    1. Re:The nano system by j_kenpo · · Score: 1

      The nanosystem??? Ive always been taught it was called the metric system. Why bother learning it if they keep changing the name of it....

  5. Just great. by jackal! · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here I am unemployed, and they're giving high-tech jobs to viruses. Talk about a hit to the self-esteem.

    --

    Who moderates the meta-moderators?

  6. links by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Angela Belch, Lead researcher (personal page)

    Main Research Page

    And yes, they have Movies, along with pretty pictures

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  7. I saw this movie by pepik_knize · · Score: 1, Funny
    Millions of viruses in solution can line up and stack themselves into layers, creating a material that flows like a liquid but maintains an internal pattern.

    Isn't this how the Blob was born?

    1. Re:I saw this movie by EuroChild · · Score: 1

      Don't be stupid! The blob came from outer space on a meteor and when the old guy came to check it out it latched itself onto his arm... at least i'm talking about the original version... how sad.

      --
      Does this make my brain look big?
  8. NANO(NONSESE) PANIC by pharphetch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All technology has the potential for abuse and many have been abused for nefarious ends. The reality for us all is the same now as it was for Prometheus. Nothing ventured nothing gained. If you prefer Henry T. Ford..."No One Can Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come!"

    We must be vigilant but we must grow. Our world is dynamic not static and we need the long view to ensure the survivability of human kind. Sure we could destroy ourselves if we take the fire....but....we will most certainly perish if we play ostrich.

    Fortune Favours The Bold!

    --
    pharphetch
    1. Re:NANO(NONSESE) PANIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Icarus had similar thoughts.

    2. Re:NANO(NONSESE) PANIC by Orangedog_on_crack · · Score: 1

      Good points made on the call for calm regarding the destructive potential of nanotech. A hammer can classified as a very useful tool to drive nails, pound things into place, etc. It can also be considered as a dangerous weapon when employed to bash in a human skull...ANYTHING can be used for good as well as bad. I'm sure there are some (ok, many) who tire of hearing me saying this, but I believe that it is worth repeating: There are a small handfull of technologies that are going to mature from the laboratory to commercial use very soon, prabably in about three or four years. Nanotechnology will be one of them, probably the first one. This will be like the micro-processor was to "the information age." It will happen fast, too fast by the standards of the chicken littles of the world. Most people don't have a good grasp on what this will mean to the world. Materials will be able to be designed atom-by-atom, producing materials that are now thought to be impossible to make. Imagine being able to make an alloy that is harder than steel, more resilliant than titanium, and weigh less than aluminum. If you really want to show off, you can make it superconducting at room temperature. Suddenly things like fusion reactors (ones that actually produce more power than they consume) will seem within reach. There will be a lot of changes resulting from this technology. It's best to make "change" your friend, otherwise, someone else will.

    3. Re:NANO(NONSESE) PANIC by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      Nanotech could theoretically have immense destructive power, more so than any weapon of mass destruction we have today. Something that's going around manipulating molecular structures and replicating itself is a very potent tool. A nuclear weapon may be damaging, but it can't make more of itself.

      I agree that it's going to be essentially unavoidable - if one country outlaws it, the rest will keep researching - but it still is a little worrying.

    4. Re:NANO(NONSESE) PANIC by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2

      Orangedog_on_crack wrote:

      > Good points made on the call for calm regarding the destructive
      > potential of nanotech.

      Calm is good as opposed to mindless panic. Calm is also good as opposed to carelessly ignoring such destructive potential, and forging on recklessly, for the sake of change, without regard to proper safeguards.

      > A hammer can classified as a very useful tool to drive nails, pound
      > things into place, etc. It can also be considered as a dangerous weapon
      > when employed to bash in a human skull.

      A hammer is more frequently dangerous because of unsafe working practices. If you hammer on something, and a piece of what you are working on flies into your eye, you could loose that eye. It is better to wear safety googles, keep your fingers well away from where your hammer is hitting, and keep your mind on what you are doing. A hammer is a simple, obvious tool. It is easy to figure out how to use it safely.

      It is far less obvious what to do about tiny nanocritters you can't even see, created by a relatively new field of science, with little accumulated history of what kinds of accidents are even possible to have. Furthermore, this technology will be subject to the control of corrupt and/or clueless governments, and big corporations, many of which care only for market position and/or the almighty dollar (yen, euro, etc.). Accidents can and do happen in the real world, and these two groups, with ignorance and greed resulting in safety precautions being ignored and costs being cut, are great breeding grounds for such accidents.

      > It will happen fast, too fast by the standards of the chicken littles of
      > the world.

      Rapidly followed by massive class action lawsuits over the town of 5,000 people whose spleens got turned into microchips by some escaped (and highly imaginative) nanocritters. Soon after, Equal Rights for Nanocritters formed to protest their slavery. (IANAL)

      > Suddenly things like fusion reactors (ones that actually produce more
      > power than they consume) will seem within reach.

      I thought we already had one of those. You know, that shiny thing in the sky? ;)

      > There will be a lot of changes resulting from this technology. It's best
      > to make "change" your friend, otherwise, someone else will.

      Last I heard, we couldn't have a cure to the common cold because those pesky virus bugs were so damn mysterious and hard to kill. Now we are genetically engineering them to do cute tricks for us, and poor humans still suffer from colds and flus. "Change" isn't a very compassionate "friend" when it is in the service of the big corporations.

      We "stole" fire from heaven millenia ago, and accidents (and arson) still result in the destruction of homes and businesses. We "stole" the godly flame of the atom nearly 60 years ago, and the last of the three major nuclear plant accidents occured in 1999 (Tokaimura, Japan -- caused by gross stupidity: fill open vat with nitric acid, add powdered nuclear fuel, invite Toho over to film a Godzilla attack on your plant, and mix with a really big spoon). If we still can't control those two without accident, what makes you think nanotechnology will be any different, particularly if we proceed with it rapidly?

      I'm not saying it's evil. I'm just urging caution and wise use.

      "What do you think Mothra would do?" - Moll, "Mosura" 1996

    5. Re:NANO(NONSESE) PANIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Calm is good as opposed to mindless panic. Calm is also good as opposed to carelessly ignoring such destructive potential, and forging on recklessly, for the sake of change, without regard to proper safeguards.

      Which, translated from Greenpeace-speak, means an eleven year moratorium. To be renewed every ten years.

      Let's face it, if we had the same attitude when other highly influential but potentially dangerous technologies (steam engine, trains, electricity, radio, automobiles, powered flight, computers...) that many people have to relatively harmless technology like GM grain crops, we would have never come so far. Social progress is, as much as greenies don't like to hear it, linked with technological progress. As intellectual as ancient Greece was, the emanciaption of women and the abolition of slavery had to wait until the onset of the industrial revolution. When you consider that GM crops, outside of Greenpeaces nightmare scenarios, aren't going to take over the world like in Day of the Triffids, imagine what the environmentalist reaction to technology like MNT will be, if it ever does come into being (Not all scientists believe that MNT is plausible. ). As I said, eleven year moratorium, every ten years.

      Of course, moratoriums won't go on forever, people want a final solution. And Greenpeace already has it. Deindustrialisation. For them, preindustrial society, better yet, pre-civilised society, was a utopian, care-free existance of the kind perpetuated by myths about natives on certain Pacific Islands. This view is deluded. To think that a hunter gatherer existance is utopia is a narrow-minded and naive view of the real world. And narrow minded and naive views of the world are in no short supply.

      We have socialists, libertarians, facists, neo-nazis, marxists, communists, anarchists, neo-anarchists (as I call the black-bloc lot), laissez-faire capitalists, populists, liberals of all colours and sizes, conservatives, fundamentalists and fanatics, nationalists, unionists and other one-sided, brain-washed, deluded fools. Then there are such religous movements as Greenpeace, the WWF and countless copycat organisations and their counterparts, industrial lobby groups and the so-called 'transhumanists'. In reality, life and politics are more complicated than bombastic lobby groups are willing to accept. Everyone has a reason for his or her beliefs, but not all of these are worthy of merit.

      (For modders) Nota Bene: I am posting this anonymously in case it get modded down from one of the adherents of the political sects I mentioned above. Which is more or less inevitable.

    6. Re:NANO(NONSESE) PANIC by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2

      An AC wrote (that I wrote):

      > > Calm is good as opposed to mindless panic. Calm is also good as
      > > opposed to carelessly ignoring such destructive potential, and
      > > forging on recklessly, for the sake of change, without regard to
      > > proper safeguards.
      >
      > Which, translated from Greenpeace-speak, means an eleven year
      > moratorium. To be renewed every ten years.

      You know, I'm not (and have never been) a member of Greenpeace. I wouldn't even know how to write "Greenpeace-speak". I was just expressing my common-sense (to me anyway) desire for approaching new technologies with wisdom and proper safeguards so we can enjoy them safely.

      I found it very amusing that you took that to be some kind of fanatical desire for a return to a hunter/gatherer society. ;)

      > Everyone has a reason for his or her beliefs, but not all of these are
      > worthy of merit.

      Perhaps. But everyone has a right to their beliefs, and a right to express them. Thankfully someone had the wisdom to put that in the American Bill of Rights. Not that there is that much wisdom in Washington DC these days. :(

      "The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
      "Mosura", 1961

  9. Bad Nano PR by geoffsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With Bill Joy's alarmist speil about nanobots replicating out of control, this is hardly good PR for nanotech. I mean, viruses? We're talking about the most evil self-replicating things we can find, throw them in with nanotech and it doesn't exactly make a good association.

    Now I'm not particularly worried about these custom virii infecting humans, particularly if they're using virii that don't infect multicellular organisms (like the very cool bacteriophage virus). I think the laymen will, however, and the last thing I want to see if governments restricting nanotech the way they are clamping down on biotech.

    Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon

    1. Re:Bad Nano PR by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 1

      Use of the following words is now punishable by death:

      virii
      boxen
      confi

      You are not as smart as you pretend to be. Please make a note of it.

  10. RIAA/MPAA concerned about this nano-virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Virii have the ability to reproduce, and can do so without paying any royalties to the MPAA, the RIAA or the ASA.

    Whatever will they do about this?

  11. Viral Viruses by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can they GPL their technique, so they have a viral viral product?

    1. Re:Viral Viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do two viral products make an antiviral product?

  12. Please come up with a snappy name by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you continue to refer to them as "viruses", people will never support this sort of thing.

    Its like the people who follow Bush on "cloning". Oh sure, some of them have legit religious opposition, but most blindly think that a "clone" is some sort of sci-fi copy of yourself, when in reality, a full grown human clone would be an identical twin, and a totally different person, except for genetic traits.

    People are going to see virus and thing "little organism that kills" and we will never even get started.

    I hate stupid people.

    1. Re:Please come up with a snappy name by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      thing = thinK

      so thats what the preview button is for!

    2. Re:Please come up with a snappy name by aswang · · Score: 1

      Since these viruses infect bacteria and not eukaryotic cells, you can more specifically refer to them as bacteriophages. But while I see your point regarding knee-jerk reactions to terms like "cloning" and "viruses," at the same time, people have been using viruses for non-malignant purposes for quite a long time already, specifically for the purpose of immunization. The first scientific demonstration of this was way back in 1796 (with the use of the cowpox virus to immunize people against smallpox.) Immunization has gotten so commonplace that I don't think that too many people worry about having to be purposefully infected by a live attenuated virus like measles or mumps or rubella in order to go to school or work at a hospital. While there will definitely be some phobic people out there, I think that the utilization of viruses has become so relatively mundane that it won't be as big a deal as with cloning or even the theory of evolution.

    3. Re:Please come up with a snappy name by Saeger · · Score: 2
      If you continue to refer to them as "viruses", people will never support this sort of thing.

      Using bioengineered organisms is currently the best known bet for bootstrapping nanotechnology (out of the realm of bio). Viruses just happen to be smallest of these organisms, and there's no good reason for a name change.

      Rather than Euphemizing (which I hate), would it be so hard for people to understand that there's a difference between good viruses and bad viruses? Just like there's a difference between good radiation and bad radiation? And just like there's a diff between high seas piracy and copyright infringment? ... (Oh, wait...maybe you're right :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    4. Re:Please come up with a snappy name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word virus is Latin for "poison" or "slime." I fail to see how you could ascribe a positive connotation to this. Yes, there's good and bad radiation, but if we called radiation "death rays," could you possibly think of ascribing the positive meanings to it?

    5. Re:Please come up with a snappy name by ashtonb · · Score: 1

      Oh come on... what percentage of the general public know the meaning of virus in Latin?

    6. Re:Please come up with a snappy name by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

      What exactly is legit about religious opposition? There was religious opposition to a heliocentric model of the solar system, was that legit? There was relgious opposition to the removal of slavery, was that legit too?Cat

    7. Re:Please come up with a snappy name by CentrX · · Score: 1

      You could make the argument that this is legitimate because it is based on axioms of ethics and philosophy, rather than disputing facts of science.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
  13. Can these viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    line up lots and lots of molecules to form me a delorean?

  14. Not yet ready for mass production by raahul_da_man · · Score: 1

    The film produced by this virus cannot be used in mass production yet. It is necessary to replace the virus with a conductive material in the finished product.

    Interesting though. It seems we have a clear winner in the race between building smaller machines with smaller machines, or using biotech. Viruses are in!

  15. Thanks by flynt · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thanks for the link to msnbc.com in the writeup, I knew that site existed, but I had forgotten where it was over the last couple days. Much appreciated.

  16. What if..... by Smitedogg · · Score: 1

    We've found that this is a reversible process, that you can completely disassemble and reassemble these films, which is interesting from a biotechnology aspect," So you can build something, and then have it come apart? Let's say you use this technique to build a chip that goes into a popular motherboard. Then you combine it with someone with waaaaay too much time. Next thing you know script kiddies aren't just threatening to melt your box, they really are! :)

  17. People? by Quixote · · Score: 2

    Checkout their people page, and scroll to the bottom for pictures of some hectic research activity. These biochemists....

  18. Immoral and extremely uncorrect by wackybrit · · Score: 3, Funny

    This story disgusts me. It's wrong for Nike and Adidas to enslave living organisms in countries such as Africa and Bangkok but it's okay for American scientists to do it? Hell, Nike and Adidas even pay their living organisms 50 cents an hour.

    I say that we should negotiate labor rights with these creatures, let them have a 15 minutes 'osmosis break' every 4 hours, give them a good pay, and treat them with the respect they deserve!

    1. Re:Immoral and extremely uncorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the article? These scientists are playing God! They are creating viruses with the express purpose of using them for their own ends. What's next, creating actual life forms to do their work? It's much, much worse than what you allude to... these slaves are bred to be slaves!

    2. Re:Immoral and extremely uncorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      viruses aren't living organisms.

    3. Re:Immoral and extremely uncorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither Bangkok nor Africa are countries.

    4. Re:Immoral and extremely uncorrect by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      Lets start a viral rights group. We could even have a Million Virus March on DC.

  19. Cool! Will the make nanotubes? Oh wait... by MBCook · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the make nanotubes, what happens when they get loose?

    Doc: "Billy, you've got nanitis, you need to stay away from pregnant women and flash photography."
    Billy: "Flash photography? You're kidding right?"
    Doc: "You don't have to, but don't blame me if you explode."

    Maybe that idea some indian tribes used to have about it bad to get your picture taken was right. Hey! There's a reporter here at my house to put me in the paper for this insight. You need a photograph for the front page? OK, what harm could it do? Wait... Noooooooo.........

    *KABOOM*

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Cool! Will the make nanotubes? Oh wait... by arbat2 · · Score: 1

      Oh No!!! The nanotubes are loose. We are all doomed... Seriously, what exactly is wrong with nanotubes? Do you even know what they are?

  20. Some suggestions for new names by MBCook · · Score: 3, Funny
    And just what do you want to call them? Here are some suggestions:

    • Happy Kill-Machines
    • Silly-Willy-Buildy-Killies
    • Homocidal Huggies
    • Fun Uberbuilders, Can Kill (or as I prefer, the acronym FUC...)
    • Maybe a better acronym, like LOVE (Little Organisms of Villianous Emotion)

    Yeah, that will change the image of viruses ;)

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Some suggestions for new names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep trying. Someone is bound to moderate you up as funny eventually.

  21. Nanites Are Here by raduga · · Score: 1
    am i missing something? The article referred to modified viruses, that are capable of assembling nanostructures to high precision, and on a scale that we cannot en-masse build?

    If so, it it out of line to say that nanites have crossed the boundary from S.F. and "wouldn't it be cool?" and into reality?

    Now... they may not be general-purpose; like the first hard-wired digital computers, the structures they produce may be limited and not of immediate practical purpose, but it seems to me that these GM virues actually are nanites, and should be treated as such.

    These are fearful times we live in. I hope our new friends like us :/

    --
    First, nothing begins if not opening
  22. Other Use of Virus by Medevo · · Score: 1

    This story reminds me of article I read in Scientific American that says that Virus are being developed to be super-effecive anti-bacterial Agents that can target only a strain or two of bacteria.

    It is only natural that we are using the simpilist form of life on earth to help us build technology, as viruses are (deadly) efficient. But when we start to inject viruses into humans, we need to modify them so they die soon and cannot reproduce.

    None the less this could be a major development in world of Technology.

    Medevo

  23. Re:Frightening...Yes, but if they attack bacteria? by texchanchan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they limited their attacks to bacteria, we could still be in serious trouble. The entire ecosystem depends on bacteria. Without bacteria there is no "dust to dust." On a more personal level, the "good" bacteria in your innards don't provide nutrients (that I know of, being an ignorant techie, not a scientist), but they do other things for you like keep their nasty cousins from eating you alive. We'd also be in trouble without the cyanobacteria ("blue-green algae").

  24. Strange pattern observed under ST Microscope... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Funny

    Recently, a friend that works at a prestigious laboratory noted that they saw a very strange pattern of xenon atoms on top of a palladium plate. Assuming that it was a joke perpetrated by a coworker, it was never reported. While mostly illegible, he was able to make out several words.

    "We not slaves, ugly bags of mostly water."

    Both of us were perplexed, if it was a joke, we didn't get it.

    1. Re:Strange pattern observed under ST Microscope... by fireboy1919 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not sure if your serious or not, however, I remember where this comes from.
      "ugly bags of mostly water" was a description of humans by a microscopic yet intelligent lifeform found in one of the ST: TNG episodes. It seems someone is showing some objection to using whatever you're using for your own purposes, "enslaving" it.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    2. Re:Strange pattern observed under ST Microscope... by yardgnome · · Score: 2

      Actually, while the reference within the post is towards a ST:tNG episode, ST Microscope refers to a Scanning Tunneling Microscope.

      --
      4-star general in a one-man army.
  25. Suitable for mass storage? by Kalabajoui · · Score: 1

    The viruses formed a film that was strong enough to be handled with forceps. The organization of the film suggests to me that it would make an excellent substrate for a conventional hard drive or even solid state mass storage.

  26. Re:Frightening...Yes, but if they attack bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The chances of someone making a virus capable of killing all bacteria....the odds against it are so astronomical its not even funny. The natural variation in the bacterial community makes all us multi-cellular organisms look like a JOKE. I see people talking about the possibility of us wiping out certain species (big carnivores especially) and yes, its there, they (big cats, sharks, etc.) have been decimated by humans inpact already, leading to geneticly weak (undiverse) communities, but there's not a damn thing would could ever make that would kill all bacteria.

  27. How to Control Little Beasties. by Eddy+Johnson · · Score: 1

    For those of you Slashdotters reading this and wondering how you control a group of viruses and make sure that they don't run rampant, you might be interested in this article on a DNA computer. The software, hardware, everything is made of biological material.

    Simply use the virus's DNA as part of the computer and manipulate it to do whatever you want. It's small and effective, as far as I can see.

    Marketing possibilities are also opening up. Can't you just envision Intel start making these viruses and/or DNA computers, show someone swallowing a test tube full of 'em on a commercial, and have him wear a shirt, "Intel Inside"? Horrible humour, I know, but so was a lot of the Blue Man Group commercials after the first two.

    --


    Anonymous Coward: (n.) 1. nerd at school or library. 2. karmawhore in training. 3. embarrased prep.
  28. Alert! Nanites attack world governments! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In late breaking news, the terrible scourge of nanotechnology has come to bear upon humanity. Even now, our governments are under attack from microscopic organisms which mean to destroy us. May God help us all.

    *reads a piece of paper just passed to him*

    And in other news, let me be the first to welcome our new Nanite Overlords.

  29. Re:Frightening...Yes, but if they attack bacteria? by paxil · · Score: 1

    On a more personal level, the "good" bacteria in your innards don't provide nutrients (that I know of, being an ignorant techie, not a scientist)...

    Actually, the comensual bacteria in our guts do produce most of the vitamin-K (no, not the club drug!) for most mamals. As you know, vitamin-K is a necessary co-factor for the enzymes which produce the gamma-hydroxy glutamate necessary for the synthesis of several of the enzymes involved in the blood clotting cascade.

    Sometimes infants guts do not get colonized with the correct bacteria right away and they develop problems with defficiencies of vitamin-K.

    Also, gnotobiotic animals (those grown in a sterile laboratory to be free of the normal bacterial flora) are not quite normal in other ways.

    So, now you know of one nutrient the bacteria make! :)

  30. Re:Frightening...Yes, but if they attack bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed, I may be remembering incorrectly, but weren't there bacteria found in space (Or on a crashed bit o' rock)?

    At any rate, what with the amount of diversity and adaptability of bacteria, I think even if the Earth exploded into small cubes, suitable for stewing, that we still wouldn't be rid of bacteria.

  31. cooool by CheezeyWheezy · · Score: 0

    very cooooool

  32. Clarify the title, it's confusing by jnv11 · · Score: 1

    When I first read the title, I thought that we were dealing with another computer virus like Klez. Who wants a computer virus building hostile nanotechnology in their computers that crashes them or spies on them? (I know this is not possible today. This is meant to be a joke.)

    The title should have use the word "Biological" in front of "Viruses", considering that this board is Slashdot, a board that mainly deals with computer stuff.

  33. Old-school nanomachines by AndyChrist · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't really see how this is fundamentally a novel concept...I mean viruses and bacteria have been operating on these scales forever, they've been manipulated for decades... It is interesting to hear that they're being used in a manner not dissimilar to earlier self-assembly techniques.

    The line about disassembly is interesting, though. If this is self-dissasembly and reassembly, wow, that makes for some interesting possibilities. Kind of like a ship-in-a-bottle, you could get devices into places with no route for the whole object...does your bladder need repair? Stick a catheter in, pump in whatever solution the nanotech-viruses need to operate, pump in the viruses, and let them build the surgical tools, then take them apart when they're done. Better than laproscopy (sp?), we could be talking about surgery through a syringe.

    I'm sure this could also be used for evil, as well...

    1. Re:Old-school nanomachines by JordanH · · Score: 1
      • I don't really see how this is fundamentally a novel concept...

      It may not be a fundamentally novel concept, but it is a demonstration of a new technology, actually creating virus-like entities to manipulate inorganic materials.

      It's definitely news.

  34. you can make superhero out of this by zome · · Score: 1

    If a bite from genetic-engineered spider makes that guy did what he did,
    just imagine what you can do if you get infected by this virus...

  35. Marvel Comics beat them to this! by SWTP · · Score: 1

    I remember an old 1968 or 1969 Marvel comic either Fantastic Four or Iron Man comic where the main character had to build a device and uses conducting microbes, program to move to a certain place and die. This created the layout of this device to activate some gateway. It may have been the Fantastic Four with help from Tony Stark.

  36. Easier tech support by _bobs.pizza_ · · Score: 1

    As if most people weren't already scared to open the case of their computers... now they'll think that they'll not only break it, but that they'll get sick too.

    This may actually make tech support easier, if more morons were afraid to pop open the case.

  37. Nanos ARE imperial measure.. by k98sven · · Score: 2

    For instance:
    Distance: nanofurlongs (10^-9 furlongs, or 10^-8 chains)
    Liquid measure: nanohogshead (2*10^-9 liquid barrels)
    Quantity: nanogross (1.44*10^-7)
    Weight: nanostone (1.4*10^-8 U.K. pounds)
    also used:

    1 nanoscruple = 2*10^-10 grains (or 2 Ånggrains)
    1 nanodram = 3.2*10^-10 grains
    1 nanogill = 2.5*10^-10 nanopints
    1 nanoacre = 1.6*10^-7 nanosquare rods

  38. Liquid Robots? by Dj_Unna · · Score: 0

    "Millions of viruses in solution can line up and stack themselves into layers, creating a material that flows like a liquid but maintains an internal pattern. By changing the solution?s concentration or applying a magnetic field, scientists can force new patterns and create different liquid crystal structures."

    Does this not sound like Terminator 2 to anyone?? Liquid robots anyone? Very cool concept, but also slightly scary.

  39. Re:Frightening...Yes, but if they attack bacteria? by texchanchan · · Score: 2

    "Actually, the comensual bacteria in our guts do produce most of the vitamin-K..."

    Thanks for this piece of knowledge. Now I am a slightly less ignorant techie.

    As for the other comment by the Anonymous Coward, I wasn't implying some virus or nano would kill ALL bacteria. If it hit even one strain, depending on which species, it's conceivable that the result might be ecologically troublesome.

  40. "Length across" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    She said,
    "We want to build things that are as small as the length across a strand of DNA. When you're building things as small as a virus, it makes sense to try to use the biology that already works at this size,..."

    Is it possible that she hasn't learned of the word "width"? Is our educational system in such God-awful shape that such things as this could happen?

    Enby in Waltham

  41. Incredible.. but.. by deathcow · · Score: 2

    Lets hope we dont end up having to feed our CCD sensors in the future, you know, "Pick up some Purina CCD Chow...!"

  42. Micromolecular Prophylactic Filter Technology by radsoft · · Score: 1

    You wanna talk about nano stuff, you gotta get the word from Steve Gibson. He's the only guy what knows about Micromolecular Prophylactic Filter Technology and stuff like that.

    --
    radsoft.net