Nanosecrets of Everyday Things

prostoalex writes "A recent issue of Berkeley Lab Research Review discusses the nanosecrets of everyday things. The article talks about common everyday applications of nanotechnology advances, as well as takes a look at tools used to manipulate itty-bitty widgets."

Comments

itty bitty

[Hall and Oates]

i have less than an itty bitty interest in this story.

Re:itty bitty

[macksav]

fucksticks! this is nothing more than pseudo-science, right up there with flying cars and flesh-like fembot sex slaves. science always talks about this kind of stuff, but never delivers. where are my fembot sex slaves!!!

Re:itty bitty

[microsoft.CLIT]

Y3S!!!1!
I am a real troll.
3y3 0\/\/ |\| z j00 a55!!!!!!
* microsoft.CLIT does the happy troll dance.

frost pist

[Anonymous Coward]

It hurts and stuff. Props to all AC FP'ers.

ooo itty bitty bits

[joeldg]

just what I always needed!!!! gimme some o' that!

Great for machines, bad for humans

[PhysicsGenius]

Nanotechnology is great for producing or maintaining machines, but I think that on the whole, I'll pass for anything in my body.

Remember Newton? F=ma ring a bell? To find the acceleration of a nanobot, a = F/m where F is the thrust of the propellant and m the mass of the nanobot. The thrust can be calculated by multiplying the mass of the propellent by its acceleration which in turn equals 2v/d (v = the final velocity and d the atomic radius).

Plug these numbers in and you'll find that even if the propellant consists of a single atom the forward velocity of the nanobot will be somewhere in the region of 1/100th of the speed of light. That may not sound like much, but even 1/1000 * 3e8 m/s = 3e5 m/s = 300 km/s = 1080000 km/h!

There's no way I'm letting one of these babies into my body...

Someone has to.

[Mr Guy]

Obligatory nanoparts and geek masturbation reference.

When will they be useful?

[rczyzewski]

We keep hearing how nanobots, nanoprobes, nanometer devices, are going to revolutionize our lives. When can we actually start using this cool technology? To understand the article better I should have payed better attention in science.

Nanotech

[Gaggme]

Perhaps some day nanotechnology can help me aim better with a railgun like the friggin bots? But in all seriousness, nanotechnology I forsee being used for malicious means much, much, much more often then for good. The splendid benifits have to weighted against the possible problems of abuse. If I understand my science fiction correctly, it would be quite simple to carry these little buggers in your lungs, exhale them in a crowd of important people, then once you leave the proximity, they go rampaging through someones body until they destroy something vital. A silent assasin much easier to disperse than any poison, and practically untraceable.

Re:Nanotech

[N3WBI3]

is your glass always half empty ;)

But in the short term youre probably right, now in the long term I think you will see far more good comeout of nano tech than bad. Many of the supercomputers we use today for medical study (like the one they just put in at UB would not exist if not for the military and its initial interest in computing for crypto/artillery calculation 50 years ago.

For the same reason I think money should be pured into NASA, somehting which may be developed and be way too expensive for people to use today will be the personal computers, velcro, felt tip pens of tommorow.

Re:Nanotech

[jsundman]

For a novel with a remarkably similar premise, please check out my sig.

Re:Nanotech

[pokeyburro]

There's probably a general name for the argument I'm about to use here.

It's futile to try to ban research of anything. You can warn about the dangers of such-and-such (which you did here, so this isn't a slam on you), you can discourage manufacture of certain products with a specific nefarious purpose, and you can withhold funding. But as for research, sooner or later someone's going to take the effort to figure out anything, as long as it "feels" useful enough, and sometimes it'll get researched just because it's there.

In other words, "it's dangerous" isn't sufficient reason to stay away from learning about something. Rather, it's an incentive to do even more research, on finding a cure for the secondary problem(s).

Re:Nanotech

[NoTheory]

The thing with nanotech is that while there are lots of new and different things you can do with it theoretically, there are developable countermeasures as well. Its just a whole new set of issues to deal with, even things like Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age: or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer brings up tech and counter-tech issues.

Re:Nanotech

[Inzite]

That's not nanotechnology...that's a virus. We manufacture those now, too.

Hi please suck my clit! KTHXBYE

[Anonymous Coward]

AMD Barton core to the rescue?
Posted 9/4/2002 - 12:05PM, by Caesar
While many wait with bated breath to see the silky moves of Hammer (uh-huh, you might not be able to touch this!), the fact of the matter is that AMD needs more life out of the Athlon XP line in order to stave off a complete performance spanking from Intel, who will no doubt have a 3.0 GHz hyper-threading CPU out before snow falls (at least in my area). October 7 will see the launch of the T-bred 2700+ CPU on a 333MHz FSB, but DigiTimes is reporting that this same month will see the launch of the Barton-core Athlon XP, which will offer higher clock speeds (2800+ for launch, I'm told), a 333MHz FSB, and a 512K cache built on a 0.13-micron process.

According to AMD's original roadmap, the Barton-core processors were positioned to target the low to medium-range market, accompanying the new-generation K8-core products. However, as the K8 processors will not hit the market until sometime later, AMD has seemed to try to maintain its momentum by strengthening specifications of its current K7 platform. Besides introducing the Barton core, the company earlier upgraded the FSB standard of its Athlon XP processors from 266MHz to 333MHz.

I could be wrong, but with the 2700+ T-bred hitting the scene in early October, I can't see the Barton launch as being anything but another paper launch, as we had with the 2600+. I hope this doesn't become a trend.

[Discussion]

More on Freestyle (Including the ever-so-fun DRM)
Posted 9/3/2002 - 11:46PM, by Kurt
Yes, Freestyle has been renamed "Windows XP Media Center Edition", but Microsoft's code names are always so much cooler than their final product names (Whistler, Blackcomb, etc.). The latest round of news indicates that the media capabilities of the Freestyle based systems are somewhat restricted by digital rights management "features". While everyone has their own opinions on the implications of the "feature", I'm inclined to see just how Microsoft approaches the implementation. MS (like SonicBlue and TiVo) is caught in between their customers and the collective meanness of the various lobbying groups. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I hope there's a somewhat non-obvious way of disabling the DRM like you can in Media player. *crosses fingers*

All "moral" issues aside, I'm quite interested to see how MS is marketing this system. Their first attempts (as evidenced by HP's implementation) seem to be aimed squarely at the rich new college student demographic. They're positioning these systems as a Computer/TV/DVD/Kitchen Sink for the space constrained dorm room resident. While the $1500 price point may be rather high, a shiny new computer system seems to be standard fare for incoming freshmen these days. Unfortunately, they're not marketing it to people like me, who want an easy to setup Home Theater PC with a very sexy TV interface. Perhaps future products (or even the OS by itself) will position things more to my liking, but we'll have to wait and see.

[Discussion]

Electronic gaming is not for oi polloi
Posted 9/3/2002 - 11:41PM, by Caesar
This story has been percolating for awhile, but until just now I haven't been able to find the real data to confirm it (PDF is in modern Greek). According to several sites, a recent Greek law outlaws electronic gaming inside Greece! Yep, even playing Solitaire on your cellphone is now illegal.

The Greek government introduced the law in an attempt to prevent illegal gambling. According to a report in the Greek newspaper Kathimerini, Greek police will be responsible for catching offenders, who will face fines of 5,000 to 75,000 euros (about $4,980 to $74,650) and imprisonment of one to 12 months. "The blanket ban was decided in February after the government admitted it was incapable of distinguishing innocuous video games from illegal gambling machines," the report said.

In other words, the home of the Olympic Games is flippin' the bird to today's electronic gamers because they can't be bothered to try and differentiate between "good" and "bad" games. You gotta love that strategy. An English translation of the law can be found here. The Greek gaming site Gameland is sponsoring a petition, so add your support if you think it will help. Chances are, if the prosecution of the first alleged violator is successful, the European Court will over turn it, and Greece will have to go back to the inscription boards.

[Discussion]

Britain to ban laptop use on planes?
Posted 9/3/2002 - 11:14PM, by zAmboni
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is pondering a ban on in flight laptop use due to possible interference caused by Ultra Wide Band (UWB) technology. Both ZDNet UK and The Register are both reporting NASA and United Airlines tests with UWB may affect an airplane's electronics.

NASA detected interference with the instrument landing system after applying frequency modulation to the UWB chip. Interference with the traffic-alert collision avoidance systems also occurred after the power output of the chip has been boosted to some 100 times greater that its usual level.

"Our primary concern is safety, and it's possible that we may have to make a ruling about UWB in the future," the Civil Aviation Authority spokeswoman said.

More extensive testing may clarify any possible problems with UWB and electronic equipment, and talks about banning of laptops is definitely premature since laptop UWB devices are not expected to go on sale until 2003. The ban would be extended to all laptops due to the inability to differentiate between UWB and non UWB enabled devices. UWB technology in the US only recently has been given a cautious go ahead. Since the technology is quite young, manufacturers would most likely modify UWB output to avoid possible conflicts which could lead to such bans.

[Discussion]

Please try to keep posts on topic.

Great Field

[N3WBI3]

This is one of the coolest field of studies to date. and the applications are nearly endless, from fuel cells, to devices to help build bone in older people.

I never got very far here, I went much more twords digitial circuit vlsi than materials but from what I do know is once they find a way to beat/get around the quantum behavior of electrons you will see a parade of innovations here.

Re:Great Field

[tolan's my name]

once they find a way to beat/get around the quantum behavior of electrons

surely that's more of an if than a once?

Re:Great Field

[N3WBI3]

I dont think so (thats why I qualified it with get around).

Re:Great Field

[Steve Franklin]

I certainly hope it's an "if." You think nuclear radiation is bad? This guy wants to "get around" the basic principle that allows matter to exist as conglomerations of elements. Talk about pollution you can't get rid of. There are real molecules your liver can't deal with. What happens when it gets a hold of some nanotech substance that doesn't even have an atomic structure? Deliver me from folks who think nature is something to be defeated.

Re:Great Field

[N3WBI3]

I did not so much mean defeat, as find another solution, obviously changing the quantum properties of an electron is not deseriable, but you "if" you can 1) find a way to compensate, or 2) find another solution which is not effected by the quantum nature of subatomic particles you can do things on the nano level.

Much of what man has thought was impossible happens every day.. When we run into a wall we either break it or go around it.

Re:Great Field

[tolan's my name]

Much of what man has thought was impossible happens every day.. ..Of course

When we run into a wall we either break it or go around it. ..Not always, there are things that may be actually impossible. Often we just go off in anouther direction. Space travel, anti-gravity platforms, room temperature fusion etc etc spring to mind.
I'm not saying we can't or won't do any of these things, just that we very well may not. Technology may just progress in another direction.

Blob?

[YanceyAI]

Often these transmission electron microscope images have a "bubble-raft" appearance, in which ordered arrays of little round blobs encounter other arrays oriented differently. Each blob represents a column of atoms; seen from a different angle, the spacing and orientation of the columns gives a different picture, although at some angles the atoms are too close together to resolve. (Emphasis mine)

Is that the super-technical scientific use of the word blob, or do they just mean, you know, blob?

Re:Blob?

[Anonymous Coward]

little round blobs

I think they mean "boob".

Re:Blob?

[regen]

The technical meaning of blob is Binary Large OBject. It turns out that at a small enough level the universe appears to be a database.

Re:Blob?

[artificial_blue]

Hmmm, wonder if the dbase is running on an open source os.

Re:Blob?

[John Hasler]

If it was we wouldn't be spending so much time reverse-engineering it.

Re:Blob?

[jacoberrol]

Makes sense. I have always had the feeling that I'm just a computer simulation.

Re:Blob?

[bensej]

does this mean god is a just a giant read/write head?

Re:Blob?

[Myco]

So... is particle physics a violation of the DMCA?

Nono.....

[eclectus]

So now we'll have to put up with Nano-porn and Nano-Spam?

Firm grasp of the obvious

[Bearpaw]

"If we are going to achieve real nanotechnology, we are going to have to learn how to put atoms together one at a time." (Miquel Salmeron)

Uh, yeah, that's what nanotechnology means. Or what it used to mean anyway, before it started getting watered down by lame science fiction and people using it for buzzword effect.

Re:Firm grasp of the obvious

[jacoberrol]

You are confusing nanotechnology with positional assembly

Assembling things one atom at a time is one way to accomplish nanotechnology, but it would be incorrect to assume it is the only way.

Re:Firm grasp of the obvious

[iabervon]

That's not entirely true; the ideal way to do nanotechnology might be to probabilistically arrange groups of atoms into a limited set of arrangements and filter out the undesired ones.

For some applications, you probably actually do want to build your structures exactly and atom-by-atom. But other applications are best suited to a set of catalysts that will construct a random variant of the structure, so long as it has the property you want, or which will only sometimes construct the right thing, but everything else will be destroyed by another catalyst. For that matter, the most successful method has been to put together reasonably large molecules which are built separately.

For that matter, depending on what you're making, you may be perfectly happy with a couple of the desired molecules and a lot of innocuous failures. The failures then are basically packing material (you're not going to deliver someone a single molecule; you're going to deliver a manageable volume of uninteresting solution with an interesting molecule in it).

Re:Firm grasp of the obvious

[Saeger]

learn how to put atoms together one at a time.

Putting atoms together eh? So nanotech covers transmutation now too? :)

Guess that could have been worded better.

--

I didn't know....

[I_am_Rambi]

"'If you're going to manipulate small things, you need small tools,' says Keith Jackson....Jackson, a physicist in the Materials Sciences Division's Center for X-Ray Optics"

It took a Physicist to figure that out? I thought little kids can figure that out. I am glad to learn the obvious from a physicist.

Re:I didn't know....

[jolshefsky]

Remember that Keith Jackson is having a conversation with some reporter. From my own experience, reporters are usually less aware of both obvious and non-obvious things than little kids. Unfortunately, Jackson was mistakenly addressing his local audience (the reporter) rather than attempt to address the audience of readers--"I don't care whether you understand, this is big-people talk so just write down exactly what I say: ..."

Re:I didn't know....

[thrillbert]

"If you're going to manipulate small things, you need small tools," says Keith Jackson

And I bet you that if you ask his wife, she has a completely different opinion on the size of the tools!

---
Yes, it's early. I need my coffee.. oh yeah, it's humor too!

Re:I didn't know....

[Conare]

I am glad to learn the obvious from a physicist
I think this sadly under moderated reader comment provides a fine rebuttal, if you were being serious. Physicists also like to describe other obvious things like how if you drop something it falls to the ground. I think that Newton guy said something like that.

Re:I didn't know....

[Idarubicin]

Except that it's not really that obvious, particularly to a physicist.

The linked article provides discussion of all the nanomanipulation being performed using extremely large tools. The Advanced Light Source (ALS), for instance, has a storage ring about 200 meters in circumference. It can be used for advanced microscopy and nanolithography, among other atom-scale tasks.

If you want to study something smaller--say, quarks--then you need even bigger tools. CERN, for example. It is 27 kilometers around and straddles the border between two countries.

Eric Drexler ???

[zebadee]

Meg Ryan in the film Innerspace(1987)started the nano-craze for me!

Re:Eric Drexler ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.. excuse me?

Raquel Welsh in the Fantastic Voyage.

Meg Ryan.. Puh-lease.. Thats really a man in drag, you know.

Re:Eric Drexler ???

[smnolde]

Meg Ryan has nano-hooters anyway.

Re:Eric Drexler ???

[PD]

There's nothing at all "nano" about Raquel Welsh's effect on me.

My ass is tasty!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nanosecrets of Everyday Things

OSDN
| Our Network| Newsletters| Advertise| Shop
Slashdot
-----------
All OSDN Sites
freshmeat
Linux.com
LinuxGram
NewsForge
OSDN .com
OSDN PriceCompare
Slashcode
SourceForge.net

X

"); //-->

");document.write("
"); //-->

Hi I am new here

[Anonymous Coward]

Important Stuff:

Please try to keep posts on topic.

Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.

Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating
what has already been said.

Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.

Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be
moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your
threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to
CowboyNeal.

You are a dick

Fsck those metric prefixes

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be called 1/2147483648th-of-an-inch-technology.

Cum-Guzzling queens R US!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Malformed Print Request May Stop Windows 2000 TCP/IP Printing Service
The information in this article applies to:
Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server
Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 4.0
Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0
Microsoft Windows NT Server, Enterprise Edition 4.0
Microsoft BackOffice Server 4.0
Microsoft Windows NT Server4.0, Terminal Server Edition

Symptoms
After you install the TCP/IP Printing service on a Windows NT 4.0-based computer or the Print Services for UNIX component on a Windows 2000-based computer, it may be possible to exploit a security vulnerability in the Line Printer Daemon (LPD) Server service on those computers. By sending a specially-malformed print request via the LPD Server service, a malicious user could cause the service to stop, preventing the computer from servicing some print requests. Other services may also be affected by stopping this service, including the Dynamic Host Control Protocol (DHCP) service. Affected services can be put back in service by restarting them; it is not necessary to reboot the computer.
Resolution
Windows 2000
To resolve this problem, obtain the latest service pack for Windows 2000. For additional information, please see the following article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
Q260910 How to Obtain the Latest Windows 2000 Service Pack
The following file is available for download from the Microsoft Download Center:

Download Q257870_w2k_sp1_x86_en.exe now
Windows NT 4.0
To resolve this problem, obtain the individual package referenced below or obtain the Windows NT 4.0 Security Rollup Package. For additional information on the SRP, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
Q299444 Post-Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 6a Security Rollup Package (SRP)
The following files are available for download from the Microsoft Download Center:
Intel: Download Q257870i.exe now
Alpha: Download Q257870a.exe now
For additional information about how to download Microsoft Support files, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
Q119591 How to Obtain Microsoft Support Files from Online Services
Microsoft used the most current virus detection software available on the date of posting to scan this file for viruses. After it is posted, the file is housed on secure servers that prevent any unauthorized changes to the file.
The English version of this fix should have the following file attributes or later:
Date Time Version Size File name Platform

03/28/2000 07:43p 4.0.1381.7046 23,312 Lpdsvc.dll Intel
03/28/2000 07:42p 4.0.1381.7046 38,160 Lpdsvc.dll Alpha

Windows NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server Edition
To resolve this problem, either obtain the hotfix referenced in this section or the Windows NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server Edition, Security Rollup Package (SRP). For additional information about the SRP, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
Q317636 Windows NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server Edition, Security Rollup Package
A supported fix is now available from Microsoft, but it is only intended to correct the problem described in this article and should be applied only to systems experiencing this specific problem.

To resolve this problem, contact Microsoft Product Support Services to obtain the fix. For a complete list of Microsoft Product Support Services phone numbers and information on support costs, please go to the following address on the World Wide Web:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=f h; EN-US;CNTACTMS
NOTE: In special cases, charges that are normally incurred for support calls may be canceled, if a Microsoft Support Professional determines that a specific update will resolve your problem. Normal support costs will apply to additional support questions and issues that do not qualify for the specific update in question.

The following files are available for download from the Microsoft Download Center:

Intel: Download Q257870i.exe now

Alpha: Download Q257870a.exe now
For additional information about how to download Microsoft Support files, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
Q119591 How to Obtain Microsoft Support Files from Online Services
Microsoft used the most current virus detection software available on the date of posting to scan this file for viruses. After it is posted, the file is housed on secure servers that prevent any unauthorized changes to the file.

The English version of this fix should have the following file attributes or later:
Date Time Version Size File name Platform

03/24/2000 04:39p 4.0.1381.33397 23,312 Lpdsvc.dll Intel

Status
Windows 2000
Microsoft has confirmed that this problem could result in some degree of security vulnerability in Windows 2000. This problem was first corrected in Windows 2000 Service Pack 1.
Windows NT 4.0
Microsoft has confirmed that this problem could result in some degree of security vulnerability in Windows NT 4.0.
Windows NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server Edition
Microsoft has confirmed that this problem could result in some degree of security vulnerability in Windows NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server Edition.
More Information
The Line Printer Daemon Server service is a feature of the TCP/IP Printing service for Windows NT 4.0 and the Print Services for UNIX component for Windows 2000. Both services provide for integration into UNIX environments. These services are based on the Berkeley Remote Printing protocols commonly called Line Printer Daemon (LPD) and Line Printer Remote (LPR). These are described in RFC 1179.

The native Windows NT and Windows 2000 printing services are not affected by this vulnerability. Although the native Windows NT and Windows 2000 printing services do operate in a TCP/IP environment, they operate with different protocols.

NOTE: The TCP/IP Printing service and Print Services for UNIX are not the same thing as the native Windows NT and Windows 2000 printing services (Spoolss). The TCP/IP Printing service and Print Services for UNIX are not installed by default; this vulnerability does not allow a malicious user to disrupt printing via the native Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 printing services.

For related information about this problem, please visit the following Microsoft Web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bullet in /ms00-021.asp
For additional security-related information about Microsoft products, please visit the following Microsoft Web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/security/

Re:Cum-Guzzling queens R US!!

[Anonymous Coward]

HAahahahahahahAHHAHAHahahahahaHAHA.

nano-widgets...for nano-gui ?

[Anonymous Coward]

imagine ants with PDAs and this nano-gui! fantastic stuff!

Resolution ...

[jetlag11235]

Perhaps I am missing something here, but on the second page, it says: "NCEM's One-Ångstrom Microscope (OÅM) has achieved the country's highest resolution-better than 0.8 angstrom" Then, three paragraphs later, they are suddenly locating columns of silicon atoms with 1/100 angstrom precision. Does this imply that there is some mechanical resolution in the microscope at the 1/100 angstrom level? Is this possible?

Re:Resolution ...

[esonik]

No, it doesn't imply that. You have to keep in mind that resolution is not the same thing as being able to locate something. Resolution means that you can distinguish two closely spaced objects, rather than seeing just one broad fuzzy spot. Locating refers to a single object: It's easy to determine the location of a fuzzy spot by just determining where the center of that spot is. Now imagine two fuzzy spots 4 Angstroms apart (see here for an example). If one of them moves by 1/100 Angstrom you will see the corresponding fuzzy spot move a little bit to the side. Obviously that doesn't meant that you could distinguish two fuzzy spots just 1/100 Angstrom apart - they would appear as one slightly broadened fuzzy spot.

Re:Resolution ...

[esonik]

I just noticed that I misunderstood your question a little bit. The microscope mentioned above is an electron microscope - as such it has no mechanical moving parts. You can see pictures taken with that microscope in this paper (2MB). You were probably thinking of scanning tunneling microscopes that have a tip scanning over the surface of a sample. These microscopes would indeed need mechanical positioning at the mentioned level to measure such small distances.

I hate you all

[Anonymous Coward]

...

It's a great story!

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon we shall be able to build nanobots that can attack inferior races like the niggers and the arabs. They can cleanse the human race from within.

Imagine, a cloud of these nanobots sweeping the country. Everywhere there is terror; Where filthy islamic nigger slime infests the streets; Wherever whites, the rightful masters of this planet are afraid to walk; the cloud will eradicate the filth by converting their cellular structure into mush. Mush that can be used to feed whites that have been forced into poverty by political correct "positive discrimination" employment schemes.

So yes, we as a technologically superior species should have an interest in this story.

And if you're afraid of killing niggers and islamites, then you have NO place posting on a popular technology journal website.

Re:It's a great story!

[doomdog]

What is wrong with you? Real men don't post that kind of stupidity -- especially not as an AC...

Re:It's a great story!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a butt pirate? Do Nano Hampsters sound good for you? Let em run around in yer ass for a while. For the Man.. Fucking loser

When can we start using it?

[SEWilco]

We'll make great improvements when I can get these electrodes to stay in the brain of the dust mites...

the slippery slope of scientific serials.

[budalite]

Reading this what-probably-is-a-very-informative article reminds me of the very interesting-looking articles in Scientific American. The first page and about a half of each article is very readable and understandable. Then, all of a sudden, like a Harold LLoyd character (the guy hanging from the way-high-up clock face) stepping from a 3" mudpuddle into a 7' mudpuddle, I find myself so far in over my head so fast that I read another half page before I even realize I have no clue what the fsck I have reading. Like the chicken running around after it has been relieved of its head (another childhood image I will never get out of my head. :P ), I have been reading just because my eyes are still moving. My brain disengaged paragraphs earlier. Whew. I want to be able to understand this sort of stuff in my next life, if there is such a thing... Go, team!

Re:the slippery slope of scientific serials.

[Anonymous Coward]

This happens to me when reading comments on slashdot with the threshold too low. Except it's usually because I don't care about what I'm reading rather than because I don't understand it (though that happens now and then too).

Re:the slippery slope of scientific serials.

[fermion]

The things is, reading a scientific paper, even a simple one, is not like reading a novel, a popular magazine, or a newspaper. For one thing, the audience for a science paper is generally considered to be educated, while the audience for other popular media is considered to be less educated, perhaps able to comprehend at an early high school level. Also, the vocabulary used tends to be obscure. This is necessary to allow precise speech. IN addition, science writers sometimes are writers second, which can also cause probles.

It is possible to slowly get used to reading science, at least in the popular medium such as Scientific American, if not Nature. I remember reading Discover in Jr. High School because I could not understand SA. In time, I was able to read SA. I think I was frustrated because it was so hard to understand, and I was not able to quickly skim the text as I would for other magazines. Even now I have trouble understanding some of the biological science articles.

So don't worry if comprehension is not what you expect. Look up words if you cannot glean at least some meaning from context. Reading is a skill, and is not neccesarily transferable between genre.

Re:the slippery slope of scientific serials.

[Hal-9001]

Then, all of a sudden, like a Harold LLoyd character (the guy hanging from the way-high-up clock face)

I think you mean Christopher Lloyd?

Re:the slippery slope of scientific serials.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he means Harold Llyod,. The movie's called "Safety Last," and it was released in 1923.

Re:the slippery slope of scientific serials.

[Telecommando]

I think you mean Christopher Lloyd? [imdb.com]

No, he's not.
He's referring to Harold Lloyd

Re:the slippery slope of scientific serials.

[Anonymous Coward]

The use of "obscure vocabulary" is especially annoying if you are new to a certain field of science. When writing a paper one always has to find a balance between spelling everything out in detail (making it easier for newbies but annoying the pros and also making the papar longer and thus more expensive) or using "well-known" terms. Usually, explanation of these terms can be found in appropriate text books. When using those terms one also has to take into account that the article has to be readable some decades into the future and thus often it is advisable describe in more detail than necessary right now. However, no matter how detailed your explanation, there will always be people who don't know one or the other term - so the solution is to find the right balance. Where that balance is depends on who your intended audience is, which is roughly given by the journal where the article appears (e.g. SciAm and Nature have more casual readers than Physical Review Letters).

As for reading articles, nobody reads an article in one go and then puts it away as "done" (unless it was just intended to get a broad picture) - usually one has to work through the paper several times, stop and read some referenced article to get more information on this-and-that procedure.

Re:the slippery slope of scientific serials.

[squaretorus]

If you get out of your depth reading Scientific American then I suggest you avoid any scientific material - that would REALLY be over your head.

SciAm, New Scientist etc... all seem to have dumbed down so much over the past 10 years that they now hold little real value. Time was that you could keep up pretty well if you read NS regularly - and have the latest cosmology, cancer and AIDS breakthroughs, computing advances, etc... straight in your head in enough detail to bore people at dinner parties.

Now its all 'blobs' and 'kind of like spagetti'.

In Other News

[Fascist Christ]

In other news, scientists have discovered the many difficulties of rematerialization as seen in science fiction works such as Star Trek ("Beam me up, Scotti!"). However, they realized the basics of the technology are already applied in our daily activities, ie: when we drive our cars from point A to point B.

Re:In Other News

[EvilBudMan]

Yes, think of it. "Beaming", This would eliminate cars, pollution, roads, etc. Everything could just be beamed someplace. I'm still working on the power source for it though and little more government funding would be nice too.

Recent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the poster or the editor NOT notice the '2001' in both URL's?

Gray goo

[halftrack]

Not all foresee nanotech as something good. Just take a look at this page where some half nutty, half sensible people want to build lifeboats/arks in space so that they can escape from the 'gray goo.'

Re:Gray goo

[saskboy]

I see nano tech as the next Atomic bomb. Once everyone has it, we'll all be huddling in our nano shelters waiting for nano-Iraq to borgify us.

Re:Gray goo

[Dirtside]

If you're feeling a little too paranoid, check out this link, where the threat of gray (or black) goo is analyzed a bit. It's not as bad as you think; blue goo should be able to protect us ;)

(Quick reference:

gray goo = accidentally released nanobots that eat everything
black goo = deliberately released nanobots that eat everything
blue goo = counter-nanobots that prevent gray/black goo from eating everything)

Re:Gray goo

[DonkeyJimmy]

I thought all we have to do is engage the gray goo in conversation through telepathy or the meditation and convince it to stop... doesn't anyone watch gargoyles (cartoon)?

Re:Gray goo

[Anonymous Coward]

Smartest investment since the Y2K bunker.

Okay, so the "gray goo" scenario is much more serious. But do people always act this compulsively when they read something in the New York Times' technology section?

Whoa Nellie!

[nucal]

Hey, I think that it's pretty good that Keith Jackson decided to broaden his horizons ....

Re:Whoa Nellie!

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you're going to manipulate small things, you need small tools"

I thought I was the only one who read that sentence the way Keith Jackson would say it.

"If you're going to manipulate small things, you need smAAAL TOools"

Question for the group.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great article, but if fails to address the question that on everyone's mind...

Can nanoprobes from a borg drone (specifically 7 of 9) be transmitted during sexual relations as a STD?

Great, tinier junk!

[decipher_saint]

Here are my questions about nanotech:

Where do all the obsolete nanites go? Will they be biodegradable, if so at what rate?

How tightly would medical nanites be controlled, sold?

How can we detect nanomachines to protect against potential dangers to ourselves or our nations?

If something like the "Andromeda Strain" did occur, how would we combat it?

I realize a lot of these questions are unanswerable, but I'm still curious.

Re:Great, tinier junk!

[Idarubicin]

If something like the "Andromeda Strain" did occur, how would we combat it?

Okay, it's an interesting post. But I must nitpick. The Andromeda Strain (in its namesake science fiction novel) was not the product of nanotechnology. Rather, it was a rapidly mutating organism returned from space aboard an unmanned military spacecraft.

That said, I haven't the damndest idea how we would deal with it if it happened--that is, if a virus as deadly as ebola appeared, was highly communicable (airborne spread) and it looked like nothing medical science had ever seen before. I'm thinking that panic, inappropriate and clumsy use of military force, followed by the collapse of civilization would all be part of a likely scenario.

Re:Great, tinier junk!

[BloodSprite]

Where do all the obsolete nanites go?
Obsolete nanites will be dust and picked up by a vacuum cleaner. it will biodegrade at the same rate as dust.

How tightly would medical nanites be controlled, sold?
tightly .. think beter copy protection then the Entertainment industry currently wants(At least I hope so)

How can we detect nanomachines to protect against potential dangers to ourselves or our nations?
only with a bath of police nanomachines could any object be declaired free of renegade nanomachines.

If something like the "Andromeda Strain" did occur, how would we combat it?
with other nanomachines.

Also The following limitations will be inharently part of any nanomachine:
1) It will need a energy source. And if we are smart it will be something we can turn off. (ie radio powered)
2) It will need to be remote controlled (the processing needed to do anything would take up more space then the nano scale provides with ease). And if we are smart this will be encrypted to hell and the nanomachine does not do anything without a command.

things we can regulate to be done:
3) Limit number of generations. A human cell can only devide around 60 times up from a one celled egg, this is the mechanizim that prevents cancer.
4) Require Trace compounds to turned new machine on and other common compunds to turn it off. 5) require other trace compounds to allow new nanomachine to be made.
6) limit all nanomachines to only function in a medium other then air. liquides such as specificly your blood or some industrial soup.

Re:Great, tinier junk!

[SaturnTim]

okay, let me take a shot at these:

1) I think we can spare the landfill space for these molecular junkpiles. Heck, i'll donate a bucket. Since we haven't perfected the perpetual motion machine, I'm guessing they won't run forever, so dumpting the dead little beasties won't be a big deal.

2) I would assume medical nanites would be controlled the same way perscription drugs are controlled... approved by the FDA after medical trials, manufactured at high prices by drug companies, and sold through official channels.

3) Look how long it has taken nuke technology to filter down to "The bad guys". This is something far off to worry about. What are you implying anyway? That we shouldn't develop this technology because one of the possable future uses is bad? never mind that it could also do a lot of good...

4) And if godzilla attacked, what would we do? It's just a book/movie. Sure, it's something to think about... but such trouble is still a long way off... Don't let fear of the unknown stop future development.

--T

Re:Great, tinier junk!

[lingqi]

I'll bite.

but such trouble is still a long way off...

In your post you continue to elude to the "long way off" as a saving grace to the fact that it is not something to be worried about. That is about as wise as only washing the clothes you will wear tomorrow everyday but no more. Just because things are a long way off does not mean we should not consider the possible negative effects of it and consider possible solutions, technologically, psychologically, or otherwise. It is bad enough that it takes a decade or so for the public to really *grasp* the dangers that are possibly involved in a new technology without whipping everyone into a freakish paranoia, let alone a thorough understanding its impact on the society and earth as a whole. Take AIDS as an example of "a bad effect", it's been around for a while now (decades), and guess what, people out there are STILL having unprotected sex, STILL sharing dirty needles, STILL saying dumb things like "oh it won't happen to me." If it takes this long for people to really understand the true meaning of a 100% bad thing, how long do you think it will take people to sort out ethnical issues of things with mixed results (like cloning, etc?).

What are you implying anyway? That we shouldn't develop this technology because one of the possable future uses is bad? never mind that it could also do a lot of good...

No i do not think that is what the original post had in mind at all, in fact far from it. There is a stark difference between blindly pursueing technology and cautiously proceed and master technology. Whilst I agree that unfortunately there have been things which have been strangled for the wrong fears (most nuclear stuff) in the past, but that is no excuse to just "research it and worry about it later." It's like going out to catch a gorilla, for example. If I know the thing can bend quarter inch steel bars, do I bring a cage made of wood? It's not the fear of the unknown, its the fear of what we know it will probabbly be capable of. and jutifiably so, to a certain degree.

while I have belief in the human capabilityes and all that -- I do not really think that a nano-scale "universal constructor" can be realistically created. it took billions of years for nature to come up with self-replicable stuff (single-cell organisms) and they are more than a battery and micro-gears. but that's a fundamentally different platform. If we assume nano-tech (in the classical sense) is possible, grey-goo is very much of a danger, as they will inevitably mutate and go awry.

I've done it!

[ItWasThem]

I have traveled back from the future to enlighten you, my ancestors, and bring about the new era of technological utopia so that you can save the earth, our home, from it's terrible destruction in the year 4572. It is my hope that by bringing about the new dawn centuries earlier that future generations will be able to avert the great cataclysm

Included below is all of the information you'll need

.

Nanotechnology is older than people realize.

[grayhaired]

For 15 years, ever since K. Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation launched the nanocraze, the field has been plagued by sci-fi notions of tiny robotic "molecular assemblers" running around shoving atoms together. But as buckyball pioneer Richard Smalley remarks, molecular assemblers have long existed: "We call them catalysts."

It doesn't surprise me that a physical chemist like Smalley sees what a lot of nanotech enthusiasts seem to forget: there is a branch of science that's dealt with atomic level materials for a long time, and it goes by the name of chemistry. The really interesting element in the new nanotech is that with the range of visualization tools we have, things that were once a kind of black magic (noble metal catalysts) can go from an art to a science and go from being pulled out of the blue to being intelligently designed.

Gray

Church over nanotech qjkx

[Anonymous Coward]

We need the old ways. We need more churches, more baseball, and more emphasis on mom. The old ways work best. Just look at the stock market. Technology is dead and will never come back. This is reality. OP.

Re:It all about control again...

[Anonymous Coward]

All about control again.... who will control... It seems that the human greed gene still works... egos drive it all ... so sad... really...

mnf@chemical-engineering.com

Re:Blob thats a programming object isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, when you don't know what it is... .call it a thingermabob.... Check out websters.

Blah...

mnf@chemical-engineering.com

patent an ALLOY!?

[mstorer3772]

Did anyone catch that little tidbit at the end? Not a device for creating a material, not even a process, but the material itself?

I'm hoping this is just a jurnalistic fuck-up... But I'm having trouble imagining that these guys know how to actually make their new alloy, or have designed some gizmo to create it.

Quick, somebody patent neurons. You'll make a fortune, especially if you can get a "derivative works" clause into the license... everything everyone has ever thought of.

Shoot me now.

Nanotechnology already in use

[Anonymous Coward]

I was of the understanding that nanotechnology was already in common use in all manner of devices powered by electricity.
I'm sure my PC uses trillions of them. Whenever something goes wrong, a cloud of the little buggers swarm out of it and float around the room. I belive that the nano-devices must be attracted to radioactive materials as well, 'cos they go for my smoke detector every time!

Re:I've done it! - not

[djupedal]

Sorry, I saw you leave and head back here. You know you are not supposed to do this. I'm removing the information from your message (before you write it) and I hope you don't try to repeat this futile effort again.

Warning, spoiler for "The Andromeda Strain"

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

If something like the "Andromeda Strain" did occur, how would we combat it?

Drinking and crying is what worked in the film. (Don't know about the book). It seems easy, as well.