Slashdot Mirror
Nanotech Protests Begin
ByteWoopy wrote to mention a Wire.com story discussing the danger of nanotechnology, and the beginning of a backlash against the branch of technology. From the article: "...environmental activists sauntered into the Eddie Bauer store on Michigan Avenue, headed to the broad storefront windows opening out on the Magnificent Mile and proceeded to take off their clothes. The strip show aimed to expose more than skin: Activists hoped to lay bare growing allegations of the toxic dangers of nanotechnology. The demonstrators bore the message in slogans painted on their bodies, proclaiming 'Eddie Bauer hazard' and 'Expose the truth about nanotech,' among other things, in light of the clothing company's embrace of nanotech in its recent line of stain-resistant nanopants."
So where are the pictures of these protestors?
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
And thus begins the Nanotech protests... Don't let the grey goo... Hey! a naked chick!!!
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
who the **** wears nanopants?
mary-kate and ashley?
shooting is not too good for my enemies
...are a very very tiny minority.
Nano bad.. let's get naked!
Its all fun and games, until nanotech technologies like claytronics are used to make a shape-shifting cyborg, and someone gets an eye poked out.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Squeeze as I can, I just can't fit in em.
On second thought...
*thinks back to 'environmental activists' seen during similar protests*
Keep the pics.
I'm going to start wearing nanotech all the time if it draws protesters like these.
I thought the Evil Religious Right(tm) had cornered the market on unreasonable opposition to scientific progress. What am I supposed to make of this??
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
My pants are already too tight, why are they making them smaller?
Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
Theres no nudity in the pictures :(
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
I'd be interested to see the nanopeople that wear EB's nanopants.
There should be a moderation category "Dumbest Comment EVER"
Crow T. Trollbot
I've got several pairs of those nanotech khakis. They don't stain at all, even with coffee spilled on them. It doesn't seem to be "real" nanotech, though, just some kind of nylon polymer treatment for the material that makes it water-resistant.
Eddie Bauer makes some nice jeans too. Levis always seem to feel better, but I get a lot more compliments when I'm wearing my Eddie Bauer jeans.
I'm not sure what they are trying to protest. Maybe they can get some mites rolling around naked in the store or something. That ought to give them something "nano" to worry abuot.
So sad, grey goo is unlikey to come from this... But we could still get cancer!
The problem with nanotechnology is that we don't really understand why much of it works, and we don't have any idea how the special properties it has will affect our bodies. Nano-whiskers? Great - I'm sure they help keep stains from getting on clothes. But what the *hell* are they going to do in my lungs?
As we've seen time and again, what we don't know really can hurt us...
--LWM
I thougt it was supposed to be the conservatives who opposed new technologies for stupid reasons? /boggle
My blog
Just call me when self-replicating pants start to take over the world.
People with too much time on their hands decide to pre-emptively protest something decades away by getting naked.
So now, they've associated concerns over proper use of nanotechnology with people stripping in public. Nice job. That'll definitely encourage people to take such issues seriously.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
these bunny humping little freaks. They have NO IDEA what they are protesting, but yet they protest.
And before you say "they are protesting nanotechnology", RTFA! Yes they are, but they have no idea why, other than its something different to protest.
Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
I was standing in line to see a movie years ago - I forget which one - when I was approached by petitioners from PETA who were upset about the treatment of the horses in the latest Conan movie.
They showed me a letter from the Spanish Department of the Interior which said, basically, "Gosh, if you say they were abused, then we believe you." Then they waved this letter around claiming the Spanish Government corroborated their claims.
People who run up and start protesting before they know a damned thing about what they're protesting just make me laugh. I hope at least that the people who took off their clothes had nice butts, because apart from some tittilation, that's all they accomplished.
Afterwards they all drove away in their SUVs.
In all seriousness, most new technologies have the potential for good and bad. How many people have been killed by electricity? Should we not allow new technologies to advance because there are dangers? I think nano is truly the next frontier and I'm excited about it.
I'll be honest here. I'll have to lose a lot more weight before I can fit into those nano-pants.
When people don't understand the science behind something as advanced as in today's world (molecular biology, nanotechnology), this type of knee-jerk reaction always happens. The sad thing is that it is very difficult to make such knowledge available to the layman because it is very hard to dumb down advanced scientific thought. Sure, some concepts can be explained by using metaphors, etc. but only up to a limit. Then, fear of the unknown takes over and such cycles repeat. Sigh.
I really enjoyed the "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" episode about environmental activists. +1 Funny AND Insightful, highly recommended viewing.
I think the thing that stuck with me the most is that the environmental activists started out decades ago with a good idea, and then were usurped by anti-American/anti-Capitalist propaganda peddlers.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
I admit I mostly only scanned over the article, but it seems like the protest was more about Teflon. Granted it's being used on a nano scale but isn't this just hijacking fears about nanotechnology to make an environmental statement about a chemical?
I wonder how many scientists who actually understood the technology were in the group. I'm guessing 0.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Still, the idea of a "catastrophe brought on by millions of uncontrolled, destructive [Eddie Bauer pants] that chew through the environment" is very appealing to me, and I suggest that the SciFi channel makes a movie about it.
Yes, of course, the dangerous effects of pants on humans. These people are just fucking stupid. Way to be afraid of a marketing word.
Hell, in all seriousness, if I had a list of available nano-tech (including foods), I'd definately try 'em. I am not affraid of modified plants, or opposed to things like nanopants. I would show off my nanopants to my friends and cow orkers.
I have these (non stretchy) microfiber shorts on now, not sure if these are considered nanotech. I sure would enjoy office shirts made out of the same material.
Protest all you want! However, these are products I personally want to buy, even as a novelty.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
to protest against fat sweaty guys protesting nanopants
No sig for you!!
. . . attempting to thwart progress.
Why don't these morons go live in the developing world as most of the world's inhabitants do: impoverished, uneducated, and unemployed.
And don't forget to give away your trust funds before you go. And burn your passports too.
"I worked hard for it. I deserve it. And I have it," Campbell said. "It's all mine."
Isn't this protest about the toxicity of Teflon, not nanotechnology?
Other than a brazen publicity stunt, what does this do? It certainly tells us those particular environmental activists are nutcases, but what does it tell us about nanotechnology?
The strip show aimed to expose more than skin: Activists hoped to lay bare growing allegations of the toxic dangers of nanotechnology.
Again, how does laying bare their skin lay bare the dangers of anything else? This will fuel stereotypes which portray all Greenies as wacked-out wienies, but what does it tell us about nanotechnology?
I suppose that they hope their arrests will lead to press interviews, but those can only lead to soundbites, and folks who are swayed by that sort of crap are going to sway the other way tomorrow.
See what I've been reading.
I have carried my cellphone in my front left pants pocket for damn near 8 years, and I have seen no side effects. Infact I have grown an inch and now have a thrid testicle! If nanotechs can promise me as much success as the radiation from my cellphone, I'm all in.
I really have a thing for these people who would rather live in the dark ages. Sure, they're happy that modern technology gives them food on the table, power in their houses, and enough free time to go and protest. But, WHOA there fella, we don't want any of that new potentially harmful technology stuff around here. The potential benefits of a working nanotechnology far outweigh any potential problems - but noooo, we don't want humanity living in a clean environment where manufacture of goods is cheap and automatic - what would we protest about then?
Damn I hate it when people are stupid, don't even get me started about how some people think it is better to BURN COAL than use nuclear power plants.
Bah, they weren't even hot naked protesters either!
Damnit - I wanted my nick to be "WouldIPutMYRealNameOnSlashdot"
It's probably just some guy standing out there waving around his nano-penis. On the other hand, I suppose it's an interesting twist on the "does size matter?" question.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
"in light of the clothing company's embrace of nanotech in its recent line of stain-resistant nanopants"
Stain resistant nanopants? Sounds high-tech, sign me up.
OMG! Wau!
Wow, so we can actually pinpoint exactly when the backlash to this tech started? Sounds like a "when I was your age" story to tell the (eventual) kids.
-Valiss
We're already seeing signs of problems to come: buckyballs appear to cause Alzheimer's-like damage when they get into the brains of fish.
o technology/dn4825
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/nan
I have been eagerly awaiting the first self replicating nanomachines ever since reading Engines of Creation (http://www.foresight.org/EOC/) but the tech probably has a long convoluted road ahead to acceptance and safe use. If we are seeing problems already with buckyballs - perhaps the simplest example of nanotech - the implications will be far greater for something like airborne nanobots that clean the air, or your bloodstream.
Somone needs to start an anti-protestors, protest group.
Instead of protesting the fact that EB is using specially engineered fibers that help protect you from the environment around you. Hey you can wear there UPF clothes that protect you from the sun so you don't get that nasty burn when you are out hiking and hugging trees. Seriously people that blindly protest something just tick me off. I heard the Eddie Bauer store had to purchase a special new set of security mechanisms to keep this from happening again. They put soap chips at all the entrances.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
NSFW? That's NSFVAA = Not Safe For Viewing At Anytime
No sig for you!!
Not even enviromental activists can stop me from becoming a cyborg! MUAH HA HA HA HA HA!
that 99% of the people who want to be naked in public, really shouldn't be naked in public?
Contrary to the fear of grey goo, the main danger of nanotech comes from the fact that particles are smaller than the natural filters that organisms have evolved to protect sensitive cells. According to the article, the nanopant tech is just buzzword hype since the stain protection material is just another chemical. However, the article does mention the studies showing that carbon nanotubes and buckyballs do cause damage to cell membranes in humans and in other parts of the food chain.
--
Get a free flat screen monitor.
Or a free $500 PC.
Proof it works.
..your protest signs can only be viewed under an electron microscope.
Transhumans come up with - like stuff to reduce them to their chemical components so they can be flushed off the street with a hose.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Don't you hate pants?
My blog
OMFGWTFBBQ EVIL TECHONOLOGY. GET NEKKID. Protests like this lower the value of all other protests. Sort of like spamming lowers the value of all e-mail, you have to filter out the crap to actually see the stuff that is worthwhile.
But who needs logic when you can jerk your knee around some. These guys have the same mindset as the Creationists, just a different issue.
*plonk*
The more you know, the less you understand.
Wow - those left wing ignorant hippies will look for ANY excuse to get naked in public. Don't they have productive roles to perform in society?
God, haven't manufacturers learned anything from the DNA-coated pants disaster 3.6 billion years ago? We're still trying to clean that one up!
Merits and dangers of technology aside, activists seem more and more stupid these days. Yeah, shock value gets you *attention* -- but not credibility. MLK had protestors dress up in their sunday best, looking dignified. If they'd run through the streets nude and shouting, it would have been a fine spectacle, but we'd probably still have seperate water fountains.
So yeah. Fight the man. Spark debate over nanotech, GM food, war, whatever. Just do it with some sense, OK? Protest is already in danger of becoming dead as a vector for social change. Turning it into an easy parody of itself isn't helping.
Tweet, tweet.
Is nano-technology in your pants, or aren't you happy to see me?
:-)]
[Apologies to Lili Von Shtupp
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
OMG!!! Nanotechnology shrinks you brain AND your penis!
Where do these heartless luddites get off protesting clothes meant for truly size-challenged individuals. There's always some new form of bigotry. We ought to organize a counter protest (clothed of course) to support these poor diminutive folk, so sorely in need of nano-pants...
...carrier dead.....
Living about 3 miles from one of thier factories, I now anxiously await the day Levi starts using nanotech.
/.ers your pictures! Don't worry!
I am certain that nothing would put me in a better mood than driving by some hot nudie protesters every the morning on the way to the office.
If they protest there, I'll get you
than these nanotech protestors is the severe apathy people show regarding the potential dangers of nanotech.
Any form of calls for caution or restraint is dismissed as Luddism and lunacy.
What we're experiencing in technology now is what we experience initially from the passenger seat of a car on a road where there's no speed limits and no traffic cops.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Didn't ecology activists protest against the use of other non-biodegradable materials?
Anyway, so far the greatest danger I see is a gradual environmental pollution with fullerenes (nanotubes, buckyballs). But can this risk be prevented? And will the nanotech advances be able to actually help fight pollution (i.e. more efficient fuel cells, solar cells, etc)?
Of course the industry must be controlled. I wouldn't like thousands of animals dying due to a fullerene outbreak, but I certainly don't want millions of SPECIES to be EXTINGUISHED because of global warming, either.
Have you considered how much fuel is burned to power the millions of computers in the world? Now imagine a world where computers use nanotech batteries which can be recharged by a mere 5 minutes exposure to the sunlight.
So, will the benefits outweight the potential risks?
"Well hello Mr. Nanopants."
There is no way in hell I can take a group seriously that knowingly calls themselves "THONG"....
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Considering the more useful applications of nanotech, don't you think it's a little suspcious that the only people who would actually wear nanopants are geeks? Think this is coincidental? Think again. You know that suit that works in the corner office? Well, he and his compatriots are getting sick of the fact that these days nerdas make better lovers. We're getting the girls and they're losing out. So, they've devised this clever marketing ploy to make sure that geeks and nerds get themselves into a pair of nanopants just because they're "geek chic". They plan to make sure that geeks don't get a chance to reproduce even if they do wind up with a good looking hottie. Why are they doing this? To ensure that the future is full of conservative business people and not those dirty liberal and libertarian geek types. Beware the nanopants!!!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
And I am Paul Denton. You're going down, little brother. Big Brother always wins, dontcha know.
Most reasonable environmentalists are for nanotech, they just want products to be tested to make sure they don't harm humans before products are shipped. Is that really so unreasonable? My dad is an environmentalist, and he was telling me that he might right a syndicated column on nanotech and the environment in the future, so maybe I can get him to do a /. interview at some point.
Seeing them made me think of saying, "I will take my nanopants off if you put your pants back on." I am just glad none of the ladies had their arms raised. Seems like many of women in these 'cause of the day' protest groups also protest the idea of shaving.
Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
Examples of nanomaterials already on the market include nanoscale titanium dioxide used in some cosmetics and sunscreens, nanoscale silica being used as dental fillers, and nanowhiskers used in stain-resistant fabrics like Eddie Bauer's nanopants. Plus, nanoclays and coatings are being used in a range of products from tennis balls to bikes to cars to improve bounce, strengthen high-impact parts or render material scratch-proof.
Okay, so bascially these people in a huff because manufacturers (Read: not Eddie Bauer) have managed to create extremely fine powders and fibers out of readily available, garden variety stuff. Obviously, these folks are the cream of the crop, Oxford educated types who clearly understand that nanotech is the death of us all. Wow.
Now unless they protesters are similarily endowed, I don't see how being nude is going to help make a point about how nano-anything is bad.
Meanwhile, expect to see people flocking to Eddie Bauer to pick up some of the newly-renamed "Stain-proof Pants", all the while looking for people to suddenly drop-trow by the register.
There are two big problems with nano-tech. First, it is too broad of a term, therefore not really useful. Second, the things it deal with are novel materials, not only in the fact that they have novel properties and risks, but those risks may change with the size of the material, and risks based on size is not something we currently have a lot experience regulating.
That said I am kind of unhappy with the fact that many companies are trying to manufacture products under the radar. We really don't know what the risk of these materials are, but we know, from current research, and past experience, that there will probably be risks. OTOH, we know that the benefits will likely at least equal the risks, and as long as we don't go hogwild everything will be ok. The issue is likely to be whether these companies are studying and managing the risks, or whether they expect future generations to pay for the inevitable cleanup.
We can take GM as a way not to do it. The assertion that GM is safe was never reasonable. The assertion that GM products would not significantly cross pollinate other products was never reasonable, and any argument that depended on the assumption was necessarily invalid. The modification to make sure the plant would not reproduce was a good thing, but we all know that genes mutate and therefore was not a silver bullet, and not without its own risk. There were and are very good uses for GM products, but the GM people really deserved the grief because they were pompous bastards.
If Nano follows the same pompous 'we are saving the world and deserved to be worshiped, not protested' bullshit, then Nano also deserves the pain. Look at it this way. Airbags probably save lives, but they probably cause injury, and occasional death. It was the marketing of the life saving properties without full disclosure of the risks that lead to problems.
The nano in pants, sun screen, and whatever else, needs to be disclosed an treated as a net benefit, not a god given gift to humanity. Who know what the long term production problems or exposure problems are going to be. I mean, are these products suitable for parents, whose baby's are going to chew on the fabric, and injest the materials and residual chemicals? This follows the same line that tuna is fine for the general public, but probably not for pregnant or nurseing women.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
These people are totally clueless, but I hope there were some nice chicks amongst them, else it could be really, really scary...
Oh well, what the hell...
See, everybody seems to have this impression that nanotechnology is going to turn the whole world into a pile of grey-goo.
Problem is, nanotechnology is NOWHERE NEAR advanced enough to do that. And may never be. As it is right now, we don't know how to make intelligent, self-replicating machines AT ANY SCALE. We're not even CLOSE to being able to do that.
This is just an updated version of the "computers are evil" mindset that still is pretty prevalent thanks to HAL from "2001: A Space Odyssey". People read some science-fiction, and mistakenly think it's REAL.
Duh.
JANE: AAAHHHHH! There are robot's in my pants! I'd better take them off!
... and your bra... ... and now your panties... ...that's it, good. Now, if I inject you with this white goo, you'll be safe from the grey goo.
JOHN: Lady, there are robots in your shirt too
protesting my stain-resistant nanopants for quite some time now.
Also, I for one welcome our new stain-resistant nanopants wearing overlords.
I for one welcome our new [insert main topic] overlords.
The solution to a British slashdotters problems?
Oh gee the greens are protesting ? *yawn*
Not new or interesting, wake me up when the green party grows up.
"we aren't getting what we want so lets get naked!"
really people, if the green party people want to be listened to then they need to actually do something that commands the respect and attention of the public. And getting naked is not it.
- "Never let a computer tell me shit." - DelTron Zero
"The Eddie Bauer protest group, which calls itself Topless Humans Organized for Natural Genetics, or Thong, had previously disrupted a Chicago nanotech conference with a quick strip-tease and a clever "Plenty of room at this bottom" inked on their hind quarters."
I guess every great protest group needs a great acronym...
They claim that the pants contain teflon, which is in a family of chemicals that can be absorbed through the skin. It is known that this same family of chemicals accumulates in the body, that most Americans have some level of this in their bodies, and that there is research to show that it damages immune systems in other animals.
"Some level" is pretty much meaningless. Aside from a few mutagens, most toxins do no damage on a single-molecule basis--it takes a bunch of them working together to hurt you. (And even the ones that can hurt you on a single molecule basis often don't do much harm until they are present in quantity). As assay methods become more sensitive, we inevitably find that every molecule in the environment exists in the body at some level. But most toxins have a threshold dose below which they don't do much of anything.
about the small fiber thing... isn't that what asbestos was/is? just a mush of really small particles...
just a thought...
Gravity Sucks
You don't want to wear nano-pants in public. Sure, it will draw topless wacky granola chicks out of the woodwork, but then they will throw bucket of red nanos on you to represent the blood of...well, whatever they think was slaughtered to make those pants.
Plus, EB doesn't make nano-pants in your color.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
These people are probably riled up about this issue because their genitalia are nanosized.
/. one of these days.
Look, everything we do is polluting. With every breath you exhale, you're polluting greenhouse gasses. When a bear takes a dump in the woods, he's polluting. That's just the way the world works. The idea should be to do the research to learn how to do things responsibly. As far as I know, the nanoterch researches are aware of the potential for danger and are addressing them.
Heck, everything has environmental dangers. Look at the pharmaceutical industry. Some of the things they make are nasty poisons. They have to be to work--that's what chemotherapy is all about. But should we shut down the pharmaceutical industry because of the potential problems? No, we invest in research to understand the issues and find proper disposal technologies as needed.
By the way, I'm not an Anonymous Coward. I'm really just a Lazy Bastard. But I'll register for
... welcome our nano-stripping overlords!
Girls removing their shirts is supposed to make us want to stop doing something?
I for one hope this highly effective method of deterrence catches on.
I, for one, welcome our new self-replicating-apparel overlords.
The US has to start funding nanotechnology research. They have to. All these protesting fools are just that, fools!
If the US doesn't spend money on this, other countries all over the world will be way ahead of us! We'll be left with McD. Jobs!
Almost nudity. But the guy on the right really creeps me out.
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
This is what happenened when PETA activists showed up at my school and tried to force-feed us their bullshit:0 325.html
http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2002/00
what the heck is that? part of the emerald city? That's the best name they could come up with?
"I live on the splediferous street"
"I'm parked on Froofy avenue"
"I shop on Really Great Road"
Seriously, can we wait until the cool nano-tech stuff comes out before the protests start? This is like protesting the realistic violence in video games just after the release of Pac-Man.
The same could be said for the method of action of most drugs in the PDR but I don't see anyone trupeting blanket bans against pharma research.
it worked, as a viral message nudity certainly gets my attention in a more positive way then throwing blood on people. In reading the article it wasn't the extremist anti-tech rant I expected. I'm naturally inclined to favour technological development/progress being a child of Sci-fi. Which the group makes a number of clever allusions too.
The few points raised in the article really made me rethink the initial opinion I had formed on what their anit-tech message would be.
- Nano-technology doesn't have to mean sexy little machines like I assumed. It really includes any technology that involves manufacturing on a small scale. That can even be some of the new molecules that we are developing for new polymers and materials.
- The article brings up the medical device example to show where nanotech dangers are happening. The research quoted shows that if pieces (and I mean small pieces, like erodes flecks of surface of the device from the movement of the bloodstream against it) of the device encounter normal cells they are small enough to pierce the membranes, rupturing the cell wall, and they then can continue to the next cell. Get enough of these pieces and yeah I can see the danger. This is reasonable enough
- The main point of the article seemed to be that we are using a new technology that our current thinking doesn't apply too. There do not exist reliable or standardized methodologies to test the effect of these new materials (which really for most of our 100,000 year existence we didn't have much of) on us and our environment. The group wants to call attention to it and encourage more active government participation in the monitoring of these materials.
All right message received.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
It's interesting that the looney left will often accuse the right of fearmongering in order to push an agenda. However, every time you turn around these eackjobs protest anything and everything no matter how weak their "proof" is. They are afraid of EVERYTHING except the obvious.
I can only hope that when we have finally developed nano-machines someone can figure out how to create one to eradicate the earth of these foil hatters.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
First off, let me preface this by saying that I'm a huge nanotech fan. The sort of leap-forward potential that nanotech provides in superconductors, photovoltaics, betavoltaics, computing, LEDs, medical tracers, antibiotics, genetics, materials, rocketry, and just about everything that you can think of are of such a huge scale, it's hard to even picture.
However, it would be wrong of us to pretend that there aren't serious risks. And, no, I'm not talking about dumb "grey goo" scenarios. Look at CNTs, for example. Very stable, aerosolizable in some situations, and very easily penetrates cells. Add various functional groups onto them (like many projects are doing) that might damage cell internals, and it sounds like a ready-made health nightmare. The problem with many nanoparticles is that they're very small, and thus able to get to places that their non-soluable relatives couldn't. They often tend to be either very stable or very reactive in comparison to their large-scale relatives.
Oh, and before all of the poorly thought out "nanoparticles like CNTs occur in nature in candle soot!", that's like arguing that since cyanide occurs in many fruits, we shouldn't worry about pure cyanide.
We shouldn't hold up research; far from it, the varying fields of nanotech really look to be the next leap forward in almost every scientific arena. But we also need to put them under great scrutiny, or we'll have another DDT on our hands.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
So, just how small is a Nanotechnology Protest?
And would you need an electron microscope to see it?
*BADUMP* -- *Ching*
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
would be nonstick cookware, which is where most people's daily encounter with teflon is. Obviously the easiest route to ingestion would be food cooked on it, compared to wearing pants. Especially if you use a metal utinsel to stir the food and accidentally scratch the pan, releasing the teflon.
So why arent they protesting sellers of kitchenware?
-
Environmental protections cue off of amounts released--tons per year for example--or final environmental concentration--parts per million, for example. The idea is that below a certain threshold the amount of toxin will be too low to have a measurable effect, because it typically works by going reacting chemically within the body.
However nanoparticles have effects based on particle surface morphology, not chemical composition. So even elements or chemicals that are totally innocuous chemically, like carbon, can can have dramatic and dangerous effects at very tiny sizes. Breathing in nanoparticles of carbon would have a much, much worse effect on your lungs than breathing in typical carbon smoke particles (which are orders of magnitude larger). Whereas smoke particles can be captured in scilia and mucuous and expelled, nanoparticles will react directly with the surfaces of the cells of your lung.
Because nanoparticles are so small, their dangerous quantities by weight are orders of magnitude lower than regulations cover. And because the danger comes from surface morphology and not chemistry, the list of "dangerous" chemicals does not adequately cover the chemicals that are dangerous at nano sizes.
It's not like we've got any of the SFnal nanotech wonders (blue goo, grey goo, computerized toothpaste that rebuilds your teeth, etc.) yet. This is fancy materials science. Super nylon.
Who's putting them up to this?
I just got to the bottom of the page and read the perfect fortune: If God had meant for us to be naked, we would have been born that way.
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
PORN!
nano-fat, but who cares.
I'm going to protest against these idiot protestors! I will be wearing clothes all day, in protest!
I am sure I will have a much more positive impact on people throughout the day because of it.
People will ask me, "Nice pants" and I will say "yeah I am wearing clothes today to protest the naked protestors who protested against nano-tech pants". And they will say "huh?".
I think that will nicely offset all those protesters who probably spend most of their lives saying "huh?".
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
seriously. I despise that organization with such a high degree of contempt that everything they talk about being against, i think about trying to go do, just because of how loathesome they are.
I'm all for being nice to animals and all that, and i happen to really like my cats and dog...but i'm not going to stop eating delcious food, im not going to ever beleive that humans and animals have equal importance, and im not going to lose a lot of sleep over what some people do with THEIR PROPERTY.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
I don't know about the rest of you,
... .x% points additional support.
...
But I'm tired of this particular word.
There must be some study (government funded)
which shows the use of this word gets a worthless idea an increase of
That same study fails to mention the loss of your soul for participateing in such behavior.
Cheers
I can't come up with words to express how appalled I am for the disdain these people have for families.
After seeing something like that I could care less about nano pants, our society is more at risk of this type of thought spreading than it ever would be of nano technology taking over.
I bet there's a great deal about malt scotch that we don't understand at the molecular level. Does this mean we should be purging Balvenie from the shelves? Saints preserve us!
This does not mean we blindly rush into things, but to say "we don't understand everything about it" or "there's a possibility that it gives cancer" is just stating the blindingly obvious. We need a better assessment of the risks than that.
Protestors gathered outside NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California to raise awareness of interstellar travel. "We have no idea how solar sails, gravity drives or warp drives may effect our environment. There's a serious risk of toxins here. What happens if there's a spill on Alpha Centauri, and the Alpha Centaurians got pissed. It could mean war!" said Edgar B. Lumph, professional malcontent and generally odd-looking guy.
Selma White, an escaped mental patient who painted her breasts green, is quite certain that this means armageddon. "I don't think humans should even be going into space. I think humans should be eating their young and having sexual relations with aspens. Have you seen my talking onion?"
Clearly there is a lashback against research into travelling between star systems. Some protestors started chanting "This is bad, this ain't no lark, let's all burn Arthur C. Clarke!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'd bet most of them are unemployed (too much time on their hands). That gives you 1 out of 3.
They are probably unlikely to be impoverished, thats how they afford to be unemployed.
Does poor education equate to uneducated, hmmm, prob not.
Why is it always the poor rich kids who do this?
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Don't these people realize nobody takes a bunch of hippies seriously?
...but there are molecule-sized chemicals in your blood! In fact, one of them, dihydrogen monoxide, has been known to kill thousands of people a year!
truth is stranger than fiction, or certain cartoon network TV shows.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Is that the best thing they can find to protest? Talk about fiddling while Rome burns! Lemme see, you could, say, talk about the broad and concerted assault on the middle class through Bush's Retirement Roulette scheme, or the nuclear option Congress is practicing on American workers by rewarding outsourcing, or the elimination of personal bankruptcy protections that only hurt anyone not wealthy enough to field a team of lawyers, or the changes to Federal Student Loan guidelines that will double the cost for poorer students' families, or nominating federal judges who equate non-neo-cons with slavers. Heck, you could possibly even talk about a quagmire that never needed to happen, that was sold to the American public on a pack of lies, and that is now grounding down our army, grinding up our treasury, and, incidentally, killing American soldiers and lots and lots of hapless Iraqis.
THIS is what these people choose to spend their time doing?
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
For God's sakes, if you're going to be stupid enough to protest something that has absolutely no scientific foundation, and if you're going to take your clothes off in the process, you MUST ABSOLUTELY be an attractive person.
Some of those people just being naked is long term environmental damage.
Damn Hippies! Does protesting even work?
There is no nanotech in these pants, no tiny machines at all. EB is using nano as a marketing buzzword. Kind of like me selling quadrophonic snowtires.
Next these MORONS will be protesting at the dog biscuit factory, because, hey, they're MAKING BISCUITS OUT OF DOGS in there.
Did you sue for burns?
They show you how the special effect is done. The director even said "So you see actors on those horses? The actors aren't dead. The horses aren't dead. It's a stunt" They were rubber pikes. Idiots.
click me
Sounds like any of thousands of protests going on world-wide. Protesters who haven't a clue about what they're protesting, but protesting it none the less. It makes them feel important. Facts don't enter into the equation.
Next thing you know they'll be protesting the round earth theory and saying the moon landing was a fake.....
"Its technology allows coatings to adhere to fabrics at the sub-micron level, reducing the amount of chemicals required to treat materials,"
Reducing the amount of chemicals needed for the treatment? Sounds like an environmental win to me. Just like nuclear power is far less polluting than burning coal or petroleum, and breeder reactors are an effective solution to disposal of radioactive waste (recycle it).
So why are so many environmentalists opposed to all three of these?
Six years ago, it occurred to me that Nano- was going to be a "buzzword prefix" in the same way Cyber-was in the 90s. I thought of different domain names like nanowars.com, nanotroops.com and the like. I wish I had registered those names - I checked and they're not available!
If you look at the pics, they are also complaining about Teflon. They said teflon stop being made by 3m 5 years ago.....except Teflon is NOT owned by 3m....it's owned by DuPont:
v let?pageId=/consumer/na/eng/housewares/keyword/tef lon_keyword_home.html
http://www.teflon.com/NASApp/Teflon/TeflonPageSer
And, as far as I know, Teflon is still in production.
Gorkman
Stain resistant nano-pants? So the pants are smaller then the stuff you could spill on em? As neat as that is, it doesn't sound too practical.
What I really need is stain resistant underwear!
What particularly was invalid about their protest? Or did you not read the article enough to know in your race to make a knee-jerk "stoopid tree-hugger s" comment?
:)
The substance in question modifies the surface propoerties of the individual fibers of a fabric. Is that substance water or fat soluble? If so does it irritate skin? Does it fit into sweat pores? Does it trigger alergic reactions/in what populations?
Wired wasn't given an interview by the material manufacturer, so we can't know.
Since their properties border on chemical-scale effects, what kind of tests should be applied to nanotech materials?
That's my knee-jerk response
Simple reason -
Inside America: tell truth about people, stay out of jail
Outside America: tell truth about people, lawsuit time
Most Americans are so used to the idea that truth != libel they forget that nearly everywhere else truth is not an exception to the law.
...are a genius, right? Good for you.
Transcend Humanity. Please.
What can those cats and dogs do with this technology? The mind reels...
... My low sperm count, cant even get through fishnet stockings!
;)
DAM YOU SHATTNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On one side are the traditional religions. On the other are new-age. Both are opposed to scientific progress. I think it was the "Skeptic" about two years ago that gave surveys to some psychic festival and some church. Again, don't be trapped by a false dichotomie.
Transcend Humanity. Please.
You are thinking in only one dimension (1D), with "right" and "left" as opposing signs. In reality there are many variables that define people's political positions, at least one per issue.
Also, for many people, political activism for their causes takes on a religious role in their lives. It gives their lives meaning and makes them feel part of a larger whole in the way that religion does.
Religious views become mixed up with political ones, to a greater or lesser extent. Religious values say that helping the poor is Good, that chastity is Good, or that being kind to other species is Good. Adherents then are prone to wanting those Good things put into law, or at least to have their government support their practice.
People see themselves as having a "right" or "left" charge, as belonging to a side, and then think they have to conform to all of the beliefs associated with that side. The religious overtones for certain issues bring religious conformity to bear. Couple that with peer pressure and you get the madness of crowds.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Oh. Wait. It's pretty hard to notice stains on my black Levis anyway. I'm in no rush. Let's see if anyone links cancer rates to the teflon in these bad boys first- YOU wear them, all the time, OK? Thanks.
Yes, that was a pathetic attempt at humor. Hey, at least I'm trying. It beats working. As far as the protesters go? Maybe I'm not picky enough about nekid chicks, but anything that encourages more nekid chicks, I'm in favor of ( as long as nobody gets hurt- a few dozen more nekid chicks isn't worth a whole damn war ).
So, I'm finding my self in favor of *both* the teflon pants and the protesters. They should recruit some more chicks, and do more nekid protests. I'm all for that. Be sure to post lots of pictures on the web. In protest. For the cause. Do it for the children.
And I must be losing my edge for inserting that apostrophe...
Those who complain about affect & effect on
Many bird owners are aware of the dangers of Teflon. Cooking with Teflon cookware will kill your birds. Not cooking their food, but any food. Teflon delaminates from the cookware and gets into the air. This isn't from crazy environmentalists; it's a real danger.
signature pending slashdot approval
This is like the ajar scare quite a few years ago now. Artificial things bad! Natural things good! What's happening is, a couple of very bored people with way too much time and money went out, drummed up some support from dull witted, impressionable people and went out to do somehting sensational to drum up publicity.
The only reason anybody got any attention is because they started to strip down.
Just a bunch of stupid co-eds acting like fools.
The metmoderation engine must be broken. How could it let enough horrible metmoderators through to get the parent modded +5 Informative? Nanotech is not at all defined by "very small machines", but is rather defined by "very small things, manmade or otherwise, used as a tool" - literally small technology!
Mod Parent Down.
...can you mix politics, nanotech, and naked bodies in a single story!
Great, they are always looking to test products out on people, and as a bonus if you survive you get to keep the product.
m l
On a more serious note, these people (protestors) are just pointing out that there hasn't been enough research done to make sure that the long term effects of the new coatings don't cause long term problems for people. Obviously what those protestors did worked, because we are now talking about it.
Example Asbestos, I could make you some pants that are fire retardant, 50 years ago this would sound great. Today we know the problems associated with Asbestos.
Anyway the list is long of great ideas that turned out deadly. The best one is X-Ray's. They used to use this for everything. Need to find out if that shoe fits. Let's X-Ray your foot in the shoe, or put it in cosmetics. At the start everything seemed good, until everyone started to die, including Marie Currie who died in 1934 from leukemia.
Radium was used to make the watch hands glow. Great idea except it caused radiation poisoning.
More radioactive products that seemed good at the time and some we still use: http://www.blackcatsystems.com/science/radprod.ht
Anyway, the list is endless, and not just with radiation either, many other ideas through time that have left a lasting effect on us today. (DDT)
And who knows you may even earn yourself a Darwin Award along the way. http://www.darwinawards.com/
Don't forget we've had buckyballs and carbon nanotubes around us for a long time. They exist in soot. You make them everytime you burn something.
You probably made some burning popcorn in the microwave. Although the quantities are small in plain old soot, these molecules are there.
As for self-replicating nanomachines. We first need self-replicating machines (beyond the putting some blocks together prev mentioned in slashdot), nano-machines, and AI suffcient that the machines can find their own material for assembly. I'd bet we are still quite a way off from that.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Let me know when there's something I should really worry about.
Free MacMini
Jake: Hey, what's going on?
Officer: Ah, those bums won their courtcase so they're marching today.
Jake: What bums?
Officer: The fucking nanotech hippies.
Elwood: Illinois nanotech hippies...
Jake: I hate Illinios nanotech hippies.
I don't think I've heard the immagration from India bit yet, but I have heard the "descendants of egyptions" line(which is were the word gypsy comes from- much like how canada stems from the french word arcadia). True Gypsies call themselves Romani, and don't give any credence to what you Gajo pigs say, or what slang you give us.
click me
Did all the intelligent posts get modded down, or is everyone here actually a techno-zealot too blind to bother questioning new technology?
America has an illustrious past of scientific brilliance and absolute assuredness in the superiority and safety of every new technology. It's too bad there was no one protesting the rampant use of lead or asbestos... or was there, but their voices went unheard?
I have no idea whether or not new fibers and fabric treatments affect our health or not, but I don't believe the manufacturers do either. Do you want to ask them now, or 30 years from now from your hospital bed while on life support?
Regarding the protestors methods: if you have large numbers, then dignified, civil protest is a good approach. But if you don't have large numbers and need a louder voice, then doing something radical is the only way to be heard. In this country, appearing naked in public is still fairly radical, so some protesters use that approach.
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals???
I like the way that one rolls off the tongue.
nanopants.
say it with me now... nanopants.
I hope I'm not the only one who sees something wrong with a person who believes that a cable channel's website is reason enough to hate me.
... QED.
I'm sure you're a really nice guy, Solder. Sadly, you have colleagues in your country who are total morons, and you're being tarred with the same brush.
If those morons weren't influential, we could ignore them. But sadly they are highly influential throughout the world, from lowly cable channel ops through to your politicians and government.
While I sympathize with those Americans who are not to blame, I don't think you can complain about getting caught in the crossfire.
After all, Bush got reelected
The hilarious thing is that behind your scorn for the 'retarded' protestors lies the fact that they are correct and it's you that doesn't understand what nanotech is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechhttp://savingiceland.org
She just hit me in the 'nads with a frying pan. Oooo. (collapses to the kitchen floor.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
You can't prove anything is not dangerous. You can only prove that the more obvious risks are too low to be easily detected.
My guess is that tests have been done on these types of fabrics. Does anyone know of such tests?
It sounds like Urban Myth. Like using a cellphone at a gas pump can cause an explosion. A well accepted Urban Myth does not make it fact.
click me
The real danger here to humanity is the negativity that these fuckers impose on the rest of us. If you don't know what you're talking about, then you might as well just shut up.
Maybe they'll do the same for your lungs, and smoking will no longer be dangerous. I am sure the tobacco industry is already testing this out on baby kittens.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Only at high temperatures
You can use teflon for things like eggs and sweats (putting veggies/meat in at low heat).
You shouldn't use teflon for methods like wok/saute (putting things in at high heat)
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
especially not linux people
I thought this sounded familiar, and a quick check showed me why: CNN ran a humorous item on the nanopants concept in January of last year: Little robots in your pants.
I mean, am I at risk everytime I fire back with a couple of rounds?
Actually, they're made with a core of depleted uranium so I suspect that I'm more at risk from that.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
wow, i wish i had mod points right now. I read that article in new scientist also.
:-)
all this nano-stuff is great in theory, but we've little enough experience with it to have it floating around outside of labs, especially for sale in a mass consumer fashion store.
teflon, amongst other substances, is great, but do you really want your cells absorbing it, or it getting into your lungs, eyes, etc. especially if you can't get rid of it? no, neither do i.
but i would like a few pairs of non-staining, anti-wrinkle pants... however i think i'll wait to see the long term effects once they've been tested on big rich dumb animals in the united states of gimme-everything-now
When was the last time we've seen protesters taking off their clothes because they do not like Teflon-coated frying pans?
Maybe I am too cynical, but I have seen wayyy too much product placement recently to automatically believe this story.
1. I have never even heard of these pants until now. Not that I am closely following the pants market, but this could easily be an advertising stunt.
2. I moved from Chicago a few months ago, but I used to work about a block from this store. I thought it was closing due to lack of sales, and that was a couple of years ago. Eddie Bauer, waning in sales....
3. Have you heard about the naked people protesting the new Eddie Bauer Nanotech pants? These new Nanotech pants from Eddie Bauer sure are causing an uproar because they repel stains. All stains. Isn't that amazing? That's right, the new stain-repellent Nanotech pants from Eddie Bauer. You should probably check them out to see what all the fuss is about.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I found on the Wired article a link to Richard Feynman's talk on nano-tech back in the 50's. I've found it very interesting, although there's a few terms I'm unfamiliar with, I guess it's just 50's style lingo but here goes: When talking about possibly miniaturizing a car Feynman says :
What would be the utility of such machines? Who knows? Of course, a small automobile would only be useful for the mites to drive around in, and I suppose our Christian interests don't go that far.
I'm really not familiar with that usage of the word "Christian", what exactly was he saying there? I know "Catholic" can mean all embracing or universal, but have never heard of another usage for "Christian" except the religion. He's not really saying "Since we're Christians we aren't interested in making cars for bugs" right? That doesn't make any sense. So what's it mean?
-Don.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
After reading the writeup, my first reaction was, "Someone is selling stain-resistant nanopants? Sweet!"
I'm sure that Eddie Bauer et al will be grateful for the wonderful free advertising this has afforded their product.
Did you do any research on the possible dangers of nanotech before dismissing its opponents as "people who run up and start protesting before they know a damned thing about what they're protesting"?
Has it occurred to you that maybe the various serious commentators advising caution might have a point?
http://savingiceland.org
I hate hippies! I mean, the way they always talk about "protectin' the earth" and then drive around in cars that get poor gas mileage and wear those stupid bracelets - I hate 'em! I wanna kick 'em in the nuts! -- Eric Cartman
Yoda of Borg am I! Assimilated shall you be! Futile resistance is, hmm?
By the way, the synopsis of the article given at http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/content/view/60/0/ is a bit misleading. The picture is more like it. One of the major points made is that nanotechnology is brand new, and that as such there are no real ways to test for health benefits. For example, a substance that in larger sizes is non-toxic and is kept out of the cell by the usual chemistry/physics can pass into the cell when it is nanosized. Thus, the current safety sheets tend to mean little when a substance is at this scale. I think there is little argument that if these things prove to be safe, there are some real benefits to be had.
Because you're not wearing your kitchenware in the form of tiny teflon fibers.
By the way, Teflon pans are deadly to birds when overheated. A gas is formed which can kill your pet in a matter of minutes. Does it affect humans? Dunno. You can read DuPont's assessment of the danger to birds here.
I'd like to find out exactly what the hazards of Teflon are, especially since we just bought a Teflon-treated couch. The fabric is awesome and inexpensive, but I want an objective assessment of the health risks.
Please don't let your distrust of activitists and love of the acronym FUD obscure the issue. The signal-noise ratio on slashdot is bad enough as it is.
Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
But Eddie Bauer pants aren't actually nano, it's just teflon http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/07/18/popsci.na ntech.pants/. Still, nanopants is fun to say.
If these guys are afraid of telfon, they should examine the plumbing in their house.
You are made of nanostructures. Wood is a nanostructured material. Whiners.
Of course, it might allow some people to put off washing a little too long.
...in my apartment, all hot women are free to protest.
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
why is it always unattractive fat girls that do the topless thing for free?
Weather is short-term, geographically-isolated environmental effects. Climate is long-term trending over larger areas.
Saying "how can we predict climate when we can't get the weather forecast right" is about as insightful as saying "but it was COLDER than average today! How the hell can we be experiencing global warming???"
Not that I disagree with you in principle, mind you - we seriously lack data to know just what is going to happen long-term. Just keep in mind that through all the talk about cliamte change, no one is claiming that "it will be 5 degrees hotter on July 21, 2007 in Peoria".
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Like all Americans we are half-breeds, mutts. I have Romani descent, but I also have Irish and Germanic.
click me
"I felt a great disturbance in the intellect. As if trillions of braincells suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly extinguished. I fear something stupid has happened." - Obi-Shadus
(sorry lucas)
Shadus
An Eddie Bauer Hazard.
Did you even click on the link?
They were naked, sure. And the silly tactic worked, since their message obviously reached a lot of people. Of course, who knows if their message was well-received, since it was prefaced with "hey look at us we're naked and screaming." Still, I read their flyers, and I found them intriguing.
Oh but wait, you only wanted to tell us how you hate activists, and I guess some moderators thought "hey, I hate activists too!" because your kneejerk reply definitely lacks insight.
Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
Yeah, but then we could run out and say "NANOTECH IS NOT GRAY GOO!". I mean, not any more than physics is a doomsday bomb. So then the protesters are not only silly, but they're flat-out wrong.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Finally i can build up some suppport for my "Down with pants" Coalition!
It's a subgroup of the "Up with mini-skirts" conglomerate!
The Good Life
Welcome our Gray Goo Overlords.
They've gotta be smarter than some of the things running around now.
Let me get this right now...
Windmills = bad. They kill birdies and block view.
Solar = bad. It's bright and shiny, might scare something.
Wave energy = bad. Might get a fish wet.
Genetic Tech = bad. It's new.
Nanotech = bad. We dont know why, somebody said so. But it could be somehow, so let's protest.
Meat = bad. Somebody might enjoy it.
Space exploration = bad. It's not making more teeming masses.
Evolution = bad. It's not in the Booble.
Yeah, Gray Goo's gotta be a step up.
And this is a true pro-science stance. Most here on slashdot believe themselves to be pro science, when in fact they are just for the latest whizbang nerdy, star-treky stuff.
Science is about learning about the world. And in the case of something complex like an organism, the effect of a new substance can only be found out by vigorous testing. Empircal evidence is the only thing that can be refered to in such cases, not rationalizations. This is why all medications go through years of studies with double blind tests, before they are allowed on the market.
Rushing to the latest and gratest without testing is what brought us asbestos and similar once great, now shunned technologies. Especially very small particles can be dangerous, since our body can't get rid of them. The human trachea for example has small hairs which constantly carry particles out such that everything below the glotis remains a sterile enivornment. Particles, which are to small for these hairs to carry out, well they just stay in. This is what allows the development of a smoker's lung or what makes asbestos dangerous.
So, since most of the arguments against the protesters here seems to be the ad hominems of the usual kind, let me in their defence denigrate the militant high-tech-fanboy. All they are really saying is: "Mommy, Mommy, these mean pro-science consumer protectionists want to take my toys away!"
Penn and Teller did a Bullshit episode on environmental hysteria. Quite a few of the activists signed a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide.
I can just imagine management.
Activists: 1-2-3-4! To magic pants, we say 'no more!'.
Management: They've sent the naked hippie brigade! Oh noes!
Activists: 2-4-6-8! We don't want to grey-goo-ate!
Management: And they're equipped with terrible rhymes! Terrible, terrible rhymes of woe! We can't counter such an assault---Johnson, remove your nanopants!
Clerk: Huh?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I'm really not familiar with that usage of the word "Christian", what exactly was he saying there? I know "Catholic" can mean all embracing or universal, but have never heard of another usage for "Christian" except the religion. He's not really saying "Since we're Christians we aren't interested in making cars for bugs" right? That doesn't make any sense. So what's it mean?
Christians have often used the adjective "christian" to mean "good", in much the same way that Americans use the term "American". The sentence: "That's not very christian of you" meant "That's not very nice of you"; just as "That's un-American!" means "That's bad!".
Christianity through the Dark Ages can be viewed as essentially the classical orwellian nightmare : replace "Big Brother" with "God", Newspeak with church dogma, and MiniTrue with the Inquisition, and you'll get the idea. "God is evil" was about as convincing as "Big Brother is ungood". There was no way to say "good" and "atheist" at the same time, because back then, the word "atheist" roughly meant, in 1950s terms, "Godless souless baby-eating commie monster".
Language use outlives history by a long measure. Few people now remember why the ancient Greeks disliked the people of Crete; but we still use the term "ignorant Cretin". Similarly, prior to even a generation or two ago, saying someone or something was "unChristian" meant they were a bad person, and the word "Christian" just meant "good".
So, Feynmann is still using the entrenched cultural reference of the adjective "Christian"; he's claiming that building dust mites tiny little cars to drive is a bit nicer (more "Christian") that we really care to be.
--
AC
I'm glad so many idiots are allowed to speak. It would be too beneficial to society to shut them up or shoot them.
Stupid Hippies.
This Sig for rent.
Cooking with Teflon cookware will kill your birds
I thought cooking birds would kill them irrespective of the material they were cooked in.
This is most likely wrong and false. My mother has an amazon redhead parrot for over 10 years now and cooks with teflon coated cookware. The danger is not COOKING the food, but rather BURNING the food or heating an empty teflon pan. It's a real danger to obnoxious squawky parrots who scream at you when you use a phone... C'est la vie ;-)
Because Teflon has to be BURNED at about 600F to become dangerous to humans in this way. It's possible to encounter this in a home environment, but at that temperature food burns and is carcinogenic anyway.
My guess is probably about the time some marketing weenie first heard the term and thought it sounded coo.
and why is it that as soon as you hear "naked protestor", you already know they're going to be ugly as sin?
Yeah, and people weren't scared of wall paneling either, when it contained asbestos.
As usuall, things are the lesser of two evils. How many people have died or gotten ill from asbestos? maybe 1,000? How many people have lived because asbestos slowed down or prevented fire? Many many more.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Oh wait-- another instance of people fearing what they dont' understand. I am *so* shocked.
Wow.
I guess the next thing you'll hear is that a bunch of people in Kansas want to redifine the word "science" to be more creationist friendly.
Oh damn...
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
If Thong make the scientists to test nanotech's effects on organisms by testing them on lab rats believing that it's unsafe for humans, and then PETA insists that we shouldn't test on animals, only humans, then how would that be different from just letting people wearing Eddie Bauer nanopants?
Sometimes I just think that environmentalists are having it both ways.
I can't wait until the protesters start thrwoing red paint on my nano-pants!!!
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
Actually, there were two trees, the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life.
Only one of the trees (Knowledge) had its fruit "eaten", so to speak.
God (or "Gods") prevented "eating" of the fruit of the Tree of Life.
See various translations of Assyrian, Babylonian and Sumerian tablets, etc. which are available on the web and libraries the world over.
Check out CRNano's overview of current findings for some good information about molecular nanotechnology.
Its absolutely amazing in its potential, and CRN strongly believes it will arrive within the next 10 to 20 years. Which is why we need to be working on sensible national and global policies towards this stuff *now*.
That site contains enough detail to give you some idea of how powerful and transformative MNT will be. It also details some of the specific risks and what is known so far about how we can handle those risks (basically: simplistic, knee-jerk attempts to manage the risk will do more harm than good).
As a layperson in the field of climate anything, I can't speak to the reliability of evidence about long-term, ongoing climate change.
I can tell you that an argument like "we can't predict this system on a microscopic level, so we clearly can't even begin to predict it on a macroscopic level" is ridiculous. It's chaotic on the short-term, but long term trends certainly can emerge.
Consider a city. Looking down from a satellite, choose a random car in the city, and try to predict its movements. Not very easy. But predict the movements of the cars in the city as a whole, as people arrive from suburbs in the morning and return to them at night? Much easier.
It's a nice sound-bite argument, but it's really goddamned tired. Put it down and think of a new argument against man-made, man-reversible climate change.
Ah, and one of the arguments is that the world economy will destroy itself if an alternative to cheap gasoline isn't found. No wacky environmentalists needed for that outcome.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Wired has some photos attached to their article article. Apparently, this all happened a month ago...
May not be work appropriate.
Synergies are basically awesome, and they're even better when you leverage them. -PA
I told you it wouldn't stop with the powerpills, but you wouldn't listen. The genie is out of the bottle!
Written without nanotechnology!
If you don't mind a little more product placement, I think you could use one of these:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
...the reason for their concerns, aren't there BIGGER things to worry about? Like GM crops that we already *know* are cross-polinating or North Korea's Kim-il-Jung or GWB?
Not that I'm going to, but I'd sooner get naked to protest any of those three things than the unknown possible risk of something.
....the body count.
Regards;
Nanotech is the progression of chemistry. Biology is the macro scale result of nano-products (aka chemistry). The nudies are a bunch of tree-huggers that should just go fuck-for-forest. If they don't like nano stuff, maybe they can start protesting the cell membrane or messenger RNA or something.
Haven't heard of these pants? You haven't heard of the Docker's Stain Resistant pants by now? The ones coated in teflon? Had some nice ads on TV- say, a year ago?
I like them. No iron, sort of comfy for work, at least as comfy as the corporate costume can be. But...it confirms what I have suspected all along....the end of the world will begin in my pants!!!!
I guess pouring hot grits down nanopants just doesn't present much of a challenge.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Many bird owners are aware of the dangers of Teflon. Cooking with Teflon cookware will kill your birds. Not cooking their food, but any food. Teflon delaminates from the cookware and gets into the air. This isn't from crazy environmentalists; it's a real danger.
Yes, Teflon can come off of the cookware... IF you get it hot enough to burn the Teflon. As long as you don't burn the food (or overheat an empty pan), the bird'll be fine.
Wow, I remember when comments on Slashdot used to be thoughtful and informative. Now they're reactive, ignorant and shallow. Did any of the dorks calling these people "stupid hippies" actually read any of the details of why they're protesting?
CHICAGO, Ill. -- On Saturday, at 1 pm, dozens of concerned citizens joined the public health group THONG outside of the Eddie Bauer flagship store on Michigan Avenue to protest the company's use of untested "nano-fibers" in their "nanotex" clothing line which also boasts the "Teflon" label and are "wrinkle free". THONG is a local Chicago public-interest group that uses nudity to educate people on detrimental threats to human health and the environment.
"We're out here naked so people can SEE THE PROBLEM, nanotech is such a radical and unpredictable new technology, like biotech, that it takes something highly visible, like a naked body, to get people to focus on the need to stop corporations from using humans as guinea pigs for new, untested, and unstable new technologies!" said Kiki Walters of THONG.
"The Royal Society in the UK has issued their own report, recommending regulation to control exposure to nanotechnologies. We believe they have a point to make. We just wanted to make it even more obvious to people."
Eddie Bauer's line of water and stain resistant clothing utilizes nanotechnology, a radically new and untested technology that involves the manipulation of matter at the scale of the nanometer (nm), which is one-billionth of a meter. At this scale, materials behave differently than their larger counterparts, and can possibly be more reactive and toxic, posing unknown risks to human health and the environment. Though nanoparticles are not regulated by any government in the world, many products containing them are already on the market, including food, clothing, cosmetics and sunscreens, without proper safety testing for toxicity, posing risks to the health of consumers and retail workers. Nano-Tex(TM) clothing contains nano-fibers coated with Teflon particles. Nanoparticles have been found to penetrate the blood brain barrier. Inhalation of many types of nanoparticles have been proven to be toxic to animals in lab tests.
"Even the largest re-insurance company in the world, Swiss RE, has stated that they will not insure nanotech at this time. At least this major financial player has openly admitted the potential toxicity of nanoproducts, and that these products present what they call long latent unforeseen claims." said Natalie Eggs, another THONG member.
The real toxic issue here is not nanotech, but the fact that nanotech is being used to further promote the use of substances such as Teflon, which is known to be toxic and dangerous and is already outlawed in many countries. People wearing these outfits with the special nanotech-enabled teflon-based chemicals embedded within them, are exposing themselves to toxic chemicals that are widely recognized around the world as being dangerous!
Heh. Just one quick spray should reduce them to a less bothersome grey goo.
Direct away from face when opening.
The ideology of "Enviornmentalism" is actually destructive to the enviornment. Examples:
Nuclear power is greenest form of energy production that is currently practicle. It is cheap, safe, and produces lots of energy. According to Greenpeace, 50,000 people die in North America die to illness due to the burning of fossil fuels. Even if there was a Chernobyl every year, according to their own figures, it wouldn't be any worse than we have now burning fossil fuels. In addition, it would stop greenhouse emmisions, the energy abundance would make technology like water desalination affordable which would help protect our natural fresh water, and it would make super-clean energy-expensive manufacturing techniques affordable.
But instead we have a society that considers nuclear energy dangerous based on knee-jerk fear, and movies about giant atomic ants.
Enviornmentalists like to wax on about how great food grown without pesticides are. However, many of these "natural" methods are orders of magnitude less efficent that standard farming techniques. So if the "natural" way of growing something is 1/5th as efficent, it means that we need 5 times the land in order to grow the same about of food. Agriculture is one of the most destructive things you can do to an enviornment, even if it doesn't use pesticides. We would end up destroying huge sections of natural land just to avoid a little peciticide. Also, farming requires fossil fuels for tractors, etc.. Increasing the land use by 5 times means expending 5 times as much fossil fuels.
And now, here is a technology that keeps pants nice and stain free. What does this mean? That means that I won't have to throw a pair of pants out after it gets something staining on it, or I won't have to put it in some highly toxic stain removing detergent. Which means we save on the resources in manufacturing new pants, the energy and transportation costs of that, and we save the water polution of using so many nasty detergents.
And we have morons protesting this, because there is not 100% proof that this technology will never cause any sort of problems... despite the many enviornmentaly positive things about these pants.
The enviornmentalist movement has been taken over by a coalition of anti-technology luddites and free-market hating Stalinists, combining an absolute hatred of all technology, with an absolute dedication to authoritarian government as the only solution to enviornmental problems.
Nanobots ate our clothes!
thats the near term risk, they're putting nano scale materials into consumer products with no idea what the long or even mid-term implications are.
Teflon is inert for MOST materials. There are a few things that make it swell but you are, mostly right. It is the most chemically inert substance I personally know of.
Just a minor clarification.
So, although they bury this information on their web page, and don't use the word Teflon (AKA PTFE), the information is there on their own web page.
(Btw, I didn't know any of this until I read about it myself in this thread.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
IAANS. The issue here is that Nano-Tex(TM) in pants are advertised as having had a "treatment at the molecular level" during fabric finishing. They mention whiskers and molecular "hooks."
Translation: "Chemistry." They're using "nano" as a marketing buzzword. They have a chemical treatment for fabrics, like many others.
It works well I hear, but nano it ain't.
I call bullshit. In it's purest form, Teflon is good to about 400 degrees F. I don't know how they laminate it to a frying pan but I am guessing they do so in a way that that the Teflon can not "melt" away or vaporize during the higher cooking temperatures. Is it possible that it's something OTHER than the teflon that is causing the problem? It would certainly be easier to qualify if you could provide a link supporting your assertation.
Also, if the vapors are so bad, then why don't power plants, chem plants, and other plants have to report to the EPA when they "melt" teflon due to process upsets and whatnot? It happens ALL the damn time. Every day, all over the world.
And since I spec Teflon on on many of the items I provide to these plants, I am certain I would have heard of any hazardous environmental issues related to it. Yet, this is the first time I have EVER heard anything "harmful" associated with Teflon.
Can you please elaborate?
The statement actually says that overheating the pans can be deadly to birds. It says nothing about the Teflon ON the pans.
Is it possible that it's a different chemical than the Teflon that is causing the problem?
...for some reason my Teflon pants attract Dog hair like a SOB. Hmmm... I wonder if I shouldn't have gone the cheap way and sprayed Teflon paint on them myself...
Who really needs stain resistant pants?
I'd think there would be a bigger market for stain resistant underwear.
People need to realize that nanoparticles (etc.) are not new. It's just that humans are now able to control what nanoparticles (etc.) we make, and to explore and exploit their unique properties. We have made nanoparticles through all of human history, and they were around before that. Our environment is full of them.
For example, any time you burn something, like wood, you are generating jillions and jillions of nanoparticles.
If you think nanoparticles are a problem, then stop driving your car, stop cooking, and stop using electricity before whining to me.
People don't really look like that. You don't look like that. Get over it.
Pic Here: http://www.chicagothong.org/
photos and description
l
http://mrsec.wisc.edu/Edetc/nanolab/gold/text.htm
Never is it so easy to get the /. crowd to RTFA as when the phrase "proceeded to take off their clothes." apprears in the summary.
Oh, come on. You're arguing against the original question by shooting down my analogy. I mentioned a system which is unpredictable short-range temporally (the weather), but is, we think, predictable long-range temporally (global weather). To demonstrate that predictability can work like this, I described a system which is unpredictable short-range spatially (a single car) but predictable long-range spatially (the entire city's traffic).
Do you see why the analogy I made was valid, and the one you did wasn't?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
How can we be sure these alleged protesters are realy protesters and not contracted by Eddie Bauer to create a publicity stunt?
I can get stain resistant pants?
SWEET.
That's a really cool advertising stunt, getting in all the papers like that. It can't have cost you very much to hire all those nuts either. Good one!
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Great point about Molecule shape changing its properties. The problem is the perception that Gold and Carbon are nice things we live with every day, so that making a Nano structure from them should be "no big deal" needs to change.
... electric insulators or better than the best superconductors", you are saying that they are "room temperature superconductors". They are better because they don't need refrigeration and that they can also serve as support structures.
I think when you say "nanotubes make
I am very frustrated by some of the automatic attitudes on this subject; While some people protest a lot of things, there is another faction that sees any protest against a new technology as being anti-business or socialist. I am very pro-progress, pro-science and pro-business. But I am even more pro-health. I can live without pants that don't wrinkle if they are going to send me or my kid to the grave 10 years early.
Lets have some perspective. Studying the effects of things and ensuring the public well being is a very profitable long-term strategy. Quality of life is not the same as how many toys we have to play with.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
The protesters are indeed correct. One of the most potentially dangerous things about nano-scale manufactured stuff has to do with shape.
The proteins that make up a vast number of systems in organic organisms will only work correctly when they can assume the right shape.
Nano-particles that can prevent one or more proteins from folding correctly could be lethal. For instance, what if the protein that makes mucosal membranes suddenly stops working because it can no longer fold correctly. That would result in a most painful death.
If you mean to talk about those things specifically, say "nanomachines".
You mean, I'm not allowed to say "nanobots"? Well, if you say so. I guess I'll have to go change my resume now.
There's a set of books by Peter Hamilton (The Reality Dysfunction, The Neutronium Alchemist, The Nakid God) which uses the term "nanotechnology" a LOT. But never in the sense of nanobots or gray mater. Good books btw. (Not a great ending though)
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
> "Many communities rely on the local mob to build their schools."
According to the Institute for Liberty and Democracy, many developing countries work this way. If you're interested in why and how to transition from a "mob" economy to a "formal" economy, I recommend Hernando de Soto's "The Mystery of Capital".
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
Environmentalists will protest anything even if the technology they're protesting is most likely harmless.
It's true that more research needs to be done with nanotechnology in order to safe-guard against possibly toxic useages.
However, protesting against the entire field of research is like protesting against medicinal research or clean-fuel research (both areas in which nanotech could bring revolutionary changes). These moronic protesters, in their ignorance of the issue, pose a serious threat to the advancement of science with their willy-nilly activism.
I am a very big supporter of environmental mindfulness. But protesters like this seem more to be supporting environmental stupidity.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Well, I figure it won't be your lungs you will have to worry about, more like your groin... I think wearing these pants would be like tossing on a pear of fiberglass insulation underwear... warm but damn itchy.
flinging poop since 1969
They were handing out signs and stickers so my little brother kept going up asking for stickers, and he would rip them to make parts of a word for a new sticker.
Eventually he got his sticker to say something like "Meat good, NO VEG!" His friends had him go up to someone and ask for another sticker, and the guy was about to do it until he saw the sticker and lunged to grab it.
The thought of a midaged twenty something college kid chasing down my little bro still makes me laugh
It all depends on how you cook. I do a lot of high heat cooking, and to get the pan that hot before I put food or oil in it, I'd get it to the temperature where teflon gets too hot and starts releasing gas into the air.
For instance, when I cook a burger on the stove, the pan is probably at least 500 degrees F, which is too hot for teflon. But most teflon coated pans are thin and don't retain heat well enough for proper browning anyway, so that's where the good ol cast iron skillet comes in.
Nerd friendly food personality Alton Brown has confronted the teflon fumes on his television program Good Eats in a "mythbusters" style episode. That 'myth' was verified, though I forget how thorough his reasoning was.
But I don't know who's getting their pants that hot!!! (which probably is besides the point, but it sounds funny, so I said it)
you cannot dodge the quad laser. jumping is useless.
I for one welcome our new topless T.H.O.N.G. overlords. Down with teflon - off with the shirt! I shall now remove all my clothes in support of them .
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
If people can connect to one another even the smallest of voices will grow loud.
--Serial Experiments Lain
people are stupid. they are probably republicans!!
> Now stop looking as http://nakedteens.com/, go meet som actual live women, and get laid dammit!
;)
But the fact that "nakedteens.com" stays in business proves that there are, in fact, thousands - yes THOUSANDS - of these women out there willing to get naked for the camera!!
The real problem isn't that they're hard to find - the problem is that they're not actually naked most of the time!
There may be dangers with Nanotechnology but come on the ENTIRE planet is covered with already nano-tech, it's called LIFE. It's been around for billions of years as well, but I don't see people protesting bacteria, viruses, etc.
Sometimes I have to wonder if anyone knows anything at all about life/biology anymore.
I have heard a bit about how the BuckyBall carbon molecules don't break down and react strangely with the body. So nano tech is hardly inert. The BuckyBall issue, while made from simple carbon, is a different shaped molecule. And could result in another health issue like asbestos fibers.
Are you aware that buckyballs are a major component of soot? Along with many of the other carbon nanostructures (many of which are manufactured by sorting them out of soot).
Humans have had a very long time to evolve defenses against these particular carbon compounds that "react strangely" with the body - along with a lot of other combustion products.
One of the dioxins, for instance, is a low-grade carcinogen for humans, instant death for birds (as in they literally fall out of the sky, which is how a chem prof told me at least one accidental release was detected) at similar concentrations, and extremely toxic for just about all other animal life.
I'm sure nanotech will soon come up with something novel and nasty to humans - if it hasn't already. But, odd as they are, buckyballs aren't it. We've been breathing them in quantity since the domestication of fire.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This research must be done. Nanotechnology must exist. I personally, will at some point contribute my intellect to the research once I have a degree in a contributing field. And as far as experiments go, I would gladly give my life for this research.
I'm sure someone can provide us a link (I read it here on slashdot), there are theories, that I find to be logical, explaining how human beings will become inferior to current technology, leaving the only logical solution to be, merging ourselves as biological organisms with technology in order to maintain out superiority and dominance in this solar system.
Nanotechnology has the potential to cure all illnesses, cure all deceases, create super humans, and reverse death. I do not make these statements in the idiot sense, use your intellect, the possibilities are real.
Do harmful consequences exist? Yes. Are the worth it? I know they are, and anyone who has the slightest clue on the facts of what this research is capable of will agree. At the least, military will like the idea of cyborgs, and it will continue in that respect. But I know, one day, I will contribute to making this technology available to all of mankind.
Dollar Highway Financial News
and it used to be, you could walk into a shoe store and stick your feet into this horizontally-mounted fluouroscope - right, with a continuously-running x-ray tube! The kids *loved* it!!
"...environmental activists sauntered into the Eddie Bauer store on Michigan Avenue, headed to the broad storefront windows opening out on the Magnificent Mile and proceeded to take off their clothes.
Why do they always do this when i'm not nearby with my BASEBALL BAT!!
I've got this can of compressed gas which I use to blow dust out of my computer. According to the label, the substance inside is tetrafluorethene, which is the Teflon monomer.
Is this also harmful to birds?
you have to look down the page a bit, but here it is again.
here it is again andagain and again.
Bird are amazingly wimpy when it comes to environmental pollutants (not saying Teflon is). Apparently you can't have a bird live in a house that has been bug bombed within the last 7 or so years (so says my step-mom, who has a number of birds)
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
is that we don't know until we do the experiments, and the experiments can be dangerous.
Still, it's probably better to make the experiment cover a smaller population than all the people who buy a certain group of brands.
De Soto disavows the credo of die-hard capitalism in The Mystery of Capital. His specific helpful idea is integrating the mainstream economy with the black market - the purpose being to strip down the barriers that make capitalism a rich man's club. If you've been following what Robert Mugabe is doing this week in Zimbabwe, that's exactly what De Soto is fighting against: oppression of the urban poor.
Being forced to operate in the extralegal sector disadvantages the poor. They are stuck behind a glass barrier that keeps them from capitalizing on their businesses and property. De Soto compares such strictures to the mercantilism that motivated the French Revolution.
The thing that makes his book compelling to me is that he's from the Third World himself and that he spent years in Peru, Egypt, Haiti, Mexico, and the Philippines studying what's really going on at the ground level. I recommended the book to you because De Soto specifically mentions the economics of Brazilian favelas.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
umm, i LOVE the Prius, i run a linux apache server, and i am lots of things, but trendy so isn't among them. until you posted, i had no inkling that the Prious might be trendy. [typical geek: totally out of the trendy loop.] do you drive an SUV and drop $4and change on your latte at starbucks while you pay (and pay and pay) at the pump?
i like DIY and things that run in a more sustainable way. i really like the hack that allows the battery to be charged for 8 hours at a time, letting it be run entirely without using any petrol. but perhaps taking new, emergent technology and hacking it, overclocking it, and putting it to my own use makes me trendy.
and if you don't like the prius, i respect that, but let's not swear at each other, eh?
I imagine the same people can't understand how so many Americans are religious. Yet the reaction of these Luddites seems to me to be just as religious.
whinning bed-wetters hate moisture proof nano-tech fabrics
"You have not proven AT ALL that cooking with Teflon is dangerous"
I don't see anywhere in his comment that he said cooking with teflon is dangerous. You are putting words in the commentor's mouth I believe. He simply pointed out a link to the manufacturer's website that stated a fact. If this upsets you that much, I hope you don't have any guns in your house.