What kind of idiot does it take to moderate this post as funny?
The only thing funny about this post is that someone thinks it's funny. It's clearly not.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
Sammich, the result of taking cheese and bread and something else (optionally, depending on your budget). A nano-sammich is the money, the knowledge, and the community coming together to make nanotech..
And as far as teaching the students, I've got a feeling the 'students' will be teaching themselves... as more and more money flows in so will the research and discovery flow out -- the mayo?
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
You're totally right. In ten or so years the entire volume of worldly nanotech probably won't amount to a hill of beans, literally.
But in twenty years... that hill of beans won't be beans, it'll be your stupid disbelief -- and I'll be eating it for lunch.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
And "just PR" helps get the money, which, even if you don't want to admit it, drives the research. You have to have University support, that's where the 'cheddah' comes from to make the 'sammich'.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
I'm not sure I'd want to be a Dr. of Nanotech.. imagine the surveillance you'd be under at all times by secretive national agencies with one agenda: STOP THE GOO.
bad goo, down boy!
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
You could have given the Wright brothers such a degree. They pioneered what has evolved into what we understand today.
New fields of study w/o available PhD's are less likely to be pursued vigorously, so this is a Good Thing.
Who'll be the first Doctor of Nanotech? Drexler?
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
No really?
Obviously HTTP is an update-by-request protocol. You have displayed your profound ability to be the Master of the Obvious.
I want to know of any timed-update programs that integrate into Windows NT 4.0 in a fashionable way, fully customizable and equipped with a sound alert.
But because my application for a brain is still in HR processing I didn't realize how futile an attempt is asking for help on the slashdot/nerd/geek haven of information bigotry.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
After patiently reading the wealth of information posted here about Human Genetics and ways to alter our blueprints I've finally got something to say.
The attitudes I've seen come from a variety of ages, and now I'm almost certain that with age comes a natural fear of altering our self image.
For some reason, in most people, the older you are the more afraid you get of change. Honestly, I can think of no other form of change more powerful than changing ourselves, so it follows that fear of change would mean fear of Genetic Engineering as well.
I read an article about a conference on increasing Longevity in humans and the ethical and philosophical implications. A large majority of the group decided that it would be unethical to increase the length of human life by stopping the natural aging process, but that killing diseases would be hunky dory.
Are these people blind?
A 'disease' can be a parasite, a pathogen, or a malfunctioning system of our complex self. Clearly stopping a pathogen and a parasite is acceptable, because they are external and 'different' than us. But, assuming Death is another hurdle in the race of evolution, what's so wrong with changing those 'malfunctioning' systems that eventually get us all killed?
Imagine a 20 year old looking 500 year old, male or female, then imagine a world filled with these people:
They'd have:
Life Experience Wisdom Common Sense A wealth of Knowledge Empathy
Now what's the point in dying? If you're at your peak your whole life, as productive tommorow as you are today, then why is Death a must?
I, for one, vote against the ethicists and religious advocates.
If something's not natural, it doesn't exist. Human Genetic Eningeering DOES so it IS.
Slashdot Mirror
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
Flame on.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
The attitudes I've seen come from a variety of ages, and now I'm almost certain that with age comes a natural fear of altering our self image.
For some reason, in most people, the older you are the more afraid you get of change. Honestly, I can think of no other form of change more powerful than changing ourselves, so it follows that fear of change would mean fear of Genetic Engineering as well.
I read an article about a conference on increasing Longevity in humans and the ethical and philosophical implications. A large majority of the group decided that it would be unethical to increase the length of human life by stopping the natural aging process, but that killing diseases would be hunky dory.
Are these people blind?
A 'disease' can be a parasite, a pathogen, or a malfunctioning system of our complex self. Clearly stopping a pathogen and a parasite is acceptable, because they are external and 'different' than us. But, assuming Death is another hurdle in the race of evolution, what's so wrong with changing those 'malfunctioning' systems that eventually get us all killed?
Imagine a 20 year old looking 500 year old, male or female, then imagine a world filled with these people:
They'd have:
Life Experience Wisdom Common Sense A wealth of Knowledge Empathy
Now what's the point in dying? If you're at your peak your whole life, as productive tommorow as you are today, then why is Death a must?
I, for one, vote against the ethicists and religious advocates.
If something's not natural, it doesn't exist. Human Genetic Eningeering DOES so it IS.