Oh ok, so let's poor millions of dollars down the drain on something we know can't be done! I know, let's build a wormhole transportation device. It will create a wormhole in space and time and allow instantaneous transport! All we have to do is try and we can do anything! I'll send the proposal off to the NSF!/sarcasm
Rei has a good point. Why are we spending time and money on the robots when we don't have the material to build the space elevator in the first place?
A fat lot of good those proteins will do on a disk if we can't read and write it. The limitation behind current technology is the laser, not the size of the bit. Red and blue lasers have wavelengths of hundreds of nanometers, so there is no way we could read or write to the protein disks with current cheap laser technology. Blue lasers have smaller wavelengths, which is why blue-ray is able to store more data.
Once you get down to wavelengths in the tens of nanometers or smaller, we're talking UV and X-rays. Those aren't cheap, and they should be able to create smaller bits on their own! This protein technology is useless reading and writing it optically.
Check your basic physics. Nakamura has been instrumental in fabricating LEDs that have small mean wavelenghths (small compared to red). Microwaves, on the other hand, have relatively long wavelengths. Your comment has no relevance to the main topic. Really.
According to IGN this only applies to newly created virtual console games, not necessarily classic NES, SNES, and N64 games. That's a pretty crucial detail.
These books ruled. My two favorites (that I remember) were "Lair of the Lich" and "The Badlands of Hark"
Speaking of, I once had what I thought was a pretty good idea: A choose your own adventure meme for blogs. I'm not really sure how many slashdotters are also bloggers, but for those of you who are, let me know what you think. Here's the rules:
RULES
1. Post a comment to the blog post where you found this meme so that that blog owner can add a link to your post. In the comment describe what choice your post takes.
2. Repost these rules at the top of the post
3. Post a link at the top of your part of the story to the blog you got the meme from so people can read what has happened previously in the story.
4. Add your portion of the story. It can be open ended, and therefore a continuation, or it can be an ending. Feel free to write anything you want, and feel free to add pictures to spice it up, introduce a different protagonist, change the very setting of the story, etc.
5. If your portion of the story is open ended then add links within your portion or at the end to blogs that are continuing the story (ie link to people that comment on your post, see rule 1).
I started my own story on my blog, linked above.
Unfortunately the meme proved to be a flop, but perhaps it was just that the people who read my blog aren't very creative. If any of you slashdotters wish to continue my meme, or start your own story, let me know and I'll link to it. I think it has potential as a good way to get one's creative juices flowing, and has a big comedy upside.
Do we not want government employees to be accountable for what they say if it is false?
Wow, you're either being extremely disingenuous or simple minded here. You think that this ruling will help with governmental accountability? It will do the opposite.
Imagine a governmental employee sees something shady, but isn't positive of their interpretation of the event, so they send an email to a coworker discussing the incident. Under this ruling, they could be fired for the email!
Yes I'm assuming that email can be counted as an official communication. I'm sure that an attorney could successfully argue the case that an email sent from a governmental account, or even from any account during working hours could count as an official communication.
My point is that if employees are unable to discuss such matters with their coworkers to clarify things without fear of losing thier jobs, then they are much less likely to bring their concerns public. This ruling will decrease governmental accountability, not increase it as you seem to argue.
At last people might start realizing what a money dump this whole project is.
The defect problem is just one of many problems in manufacturing the CNT ribbon (eg it could take millions of years to grow a continuous ribbon, weaving them together is just not strong enough).
Common sense would dictate that we stop spending so much money on this project immediately. Carbon Nanotubes have many other applications on the cutting edge of technology, notably in nanoelectronics and sensors, that are much closer to fruition. Just as in the semiconductor industry, once these technologies mature we should see vast improvements in the growth process. Then we could turn to the space elevator problem, presumably with some defect-free growth process already in hand.
As it is we're just pouring money into a money pit of a dream impossible with today's technology. Typical of our government... missle defense anyone?
Well, the article says the light comes out the other end before the putting-in end has light going in
False, if you read the article nothing comes out the output end until the proceding edge of the light enters the input. The proceeding edge contains all the information about the light pulse, so causality is never violated and your thought experiment would never work.
1) Yeah this is true for the cars, but you also have to consider power generation of gasoline vs. power generation of coal (which is where we get most of our electricity). Also we should consider the amount of pollutant emmitted per watt for coal vs for gasoline. I believe (but have not checked) that coal puts out more pollution. Using those factors you could arrive at pollutant per watt for the cars themselves for the two technologies. It would be interesting to see which is higher (but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
2) ok
3) That's a good point, I agree that electric cars can be more efficient overall, but I think we agree that efficient technology can still be used in a stupid fashion.
IMO it was a good thing that electric cars didn't have the power that gas-powered cars did. The higher the power the more the energy wasted by every fool that does burnouts at stoplights and drag races. Now it looks like the cycle will continue. Since most of our electrical power comes from coal it looks like our air pollution isn't going to be decreasing anytime soon, although at least it will be more centralized.
Other unusual, and silly names, such as Google, Yahoo, and Ipod have all ended up being attached to very succesful companies/services/products. You'll have to admit Wii is very similar to Yahoo.
Why not have NASA focus again on engineering (i.e. putting people in space is primarily an engineering task) that pushes the edge of what is possible (e.g. manned lunar/Mars/asteroid rondesvous, etc) and leave the earth science to other countries that have fewer ties between their poiticians and their science programs (how about somewhere that actually signed Kyoto?).
Go back and read the article. Earth science is important to everyone who lives on the earth, and eats food produced on the earth. Near as I can tell, that includes the US, regardless of whether we signed the meaningless Kyoto treaty.
Your idea of having the world's biggest funder of science and most advanced scientifically country (the US) abandon an important branch of science like Earth science is at best glib, at worst foolish, short-sighted, and possibly malicious.
Oops, sorry about the lack of breaks, here's a more legible form of my comment:
I don't know specifics, but I don't see why the nanotube couldn't support electronic channels with bandwidths into the GHz or even higher as well.
Single-walled nanotube transistors operating at 2.6 GHz have been demonstrated (see Li et al. Nanoletters 2004 pg 753). Theoretical limits for CNT transistors are in the tens of GHz range (the limits come from the mobility of the electron). A caveat is that I believe the temperature was around 4 K.
Although nanotubes do have interesting characteristics different from typical metals and semiconductors. Ie, the electron-phonon interaction goes as 1/T, instead of 1/T^5 (where T is temperature). So at low temperatures there might be useful ways to couple electronic channels to vibrational modes not possible in conventional materials. Or vice versa, the phonon modes might more easily kill off electronic signals.
Actually vibrational modes (phonons) are usually detrimental to electronic circuits - they are the main source of electronic scattering, and heating of the device. One of the reasons SWNTs have elucidated so much interest is because they probably conduct ballistically (without scattering) at room temperature and lower for channel lengths as long as 1 micron (and low bias). At low temperatures you certainly wouldn't be coupling electronic channels to vibrational modes.
I don't know specifics, but I don't see why the nanotube couldn't support electronic channels with bandwidths into the GHz or even higher as well.
Single-walled nanotube transistors operating at 2.6 GHz have been demonstrated (see Li et al. Nanoletters 2004 pg 753). Theoretical limits for CNT transistors are in the tens of GHz range (the limits come from the mobility of the electron). A caveat is that I believe the temperature was around 4 K.
Although nanotubes do have interesting characteristics different from typical metals and semiconductors. Ie, the electron-phonon interaction goes as 1/T, instead of 1/T^5 (where T is temperature). So at low temperatures there might be useful ways to couple electronic channels to vibrational modes not possible in conventional materials. Or vice versa, the phonon modes might more easily kill off electronic signals.
Actually vibrational modes (phonons) are usually detrimental to electronic circuits - they are the main source of electronic scattering, and heating of the device. One of the reasons SWNTs have elucidated so much interest is because they probably conduct ballistically (without scattering) at room temperature and lower for channel lengths as long as 1 micron (and low bias). At low temperatures you certainly wouldn't be coupling electronic channels to vibrational modes.
Actually, you can make nanotubes out of other materials besides carbon. Metallic nanotubes, for example, will have different crystal structures than the graphene hexagon.
A tube with 100 atoms will have 100 distinct oscillating modes.
No, it will have 300, one for each degree of freedom. However, three of these will be translational modes, which are not phonon modes, so really there will be 297 distinct phonon branches. In addition you should distinguish between the number of atoms in a Carbon Nanotube, and the number of atoms in its unit cell. A unit cell may have 100 atoms, but the entire nanotube can be made of 1000s of unit cells. The number of atoms in the unit cell is the important number for calculating phonons.
Even if all this analysis is wasted breath, if peak oil has certainly and suddenly hit and we're all staring at a future of expensive oil, even then, I'm still not worried. [R]ising oil prices are... an invitation to corn and coal and hydrogen. For anyone with a fresh idea, expensive oil is as good as a subsidy. Expensive oil only means we shift to something else, probably something cleaner, and I'm fine with that too.
I've seen that wired article you bring up, and it's simply ridiculous. Basically it says to use all the oil we have so that we'll be forced to develop new, cleaner technologies. What it doesn't address is whether such technologies that can replace oil even exist. All alternative energy sources have one or more of the following three problems:
1. Their pollution is as hard or worse to deal with than the pollution from conventional oil (see nuclear and coal power)
2. There is not near enough of it to replace oil (see wind, geo, and hydro power)
3. They have a low Energy Profit Ratio
The last is perhaps the hardest problem to deal with. Energy Profit Ratio is (Energy obtained)/(Energy Expended). Simply it's the amount of energy you get out of an energy source vs. the energy you put in to make that source viable. For example, until recently oil has had an EPR of 20, meaning for every barrel of oil's worth of energy you expend drilling for the oil, you get 20 barrels out. That is fantastic. Unfortunately alternative energy sources just don't compare to Oil's EPR. See this page for further disadvantages of alt. energy sources.
In terms of science, Wired doesn't know what it's talking about, and apparently neither do you. Quit using silly excuses like "The scientists will figure things out" to justify your extravagant western lifestyle when you clearly are ignorant about the subject.
I never called the robotics "trivial", I called them simple in comparison to the CNT ribbon.
I am a materials scientist working on Carbon Nanotubes (to also reply to your post below), and while growth isn't my concentration, I do know from the literature that the fastest growth acheived for CNTs is 10-100 microns/sec.
Now CNTs are only strong if they are continuous. In other words, if you spin a thread of them the tube to tube bonding would probably not be strong enough for the elevator. So to build the ribbon you have to grow continuous nanotubes to the length you want the ribbon. If we assume the upper limit on the nanotube growth rate I stated above, then it would take approximately half a million years to grow one mile of ribbon.
Since I'm not working directly on the ribbon I could be wrong about a few things, but the point is that there are several very tough technological obstacles to growing the ribbon. In contrast the climbers build on technology we already have, so that's why I said they are simple to build in comparison to the ribbon.
This is just a meaningless press release meant to drumm up publicity.
The tough thing in building a space elevator is fabricating the Carbon Nanotube ribbon. Making the robots that move up and down the ribbon is relatively simple by comparison.
How can you take that magazine seriously when they make statements like these?
"Working with individual ions is key to building powerful computing machines that will exploit quantum physics -- instead of transistors
Transistors exploit quantum physics! Transistors work because of the laws of QM - they were designed after the QM describing solid state objects was formlated. The classical analog is vacuum tubes.
Why do people come so willingly to evolution's defense? The lack of a rigorous formulation makes it vulnerable. It provides a plausible explanation for the origin of species, but has no predictive power at all. Even the theory of econometrics is more developed in this sense. If I were a biologist or an geneticist I would be embarrassed at the state of the field.
No predictive power? Have you ever heard of DNA? The theory of evolution predicted its existance, because there would have to be some physical way of organisms passing their traits to their offspring while at the same time allowing for variablity.
Also evolution predicts the existance of intermediates, such as archaeopteryx in the fossil record.
Perhaps you should learn something about a subject before you argue about its validity.
Grey goo, if I remember from that Bill Joy piece, is enrestrained entropy
That's not what Kurzweil was talking about. He was talking about Drexler's vision of grey goo as self-replicating nanobots. See the wikipedia article I linked if you're still confused.
The current arrangement you and I are familiar with exists in spite of the entropy constantly working to disassemble us and everything around us.
This statement is just silly. Entropy isn't some evil force trying to "disasemble us". In fact your living processes increase the entropy of the universe. In a way, we help entropy. We wouldn't exist if we didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh ok, so let's poor millions of dollars down the drain on something we know can't be done! I know, let's build a wormhole transportation device. It will create a wormhole in space and time and allow instantaneous transport! All we have to do is try and we can do anything! I'll send the proposal off to the NSF! /sarcasm
Rei has a good point. Why are we spending time and money on the robots when we don't have the material to build the space elevator in the first place?
A fat lot of good those proteins will do on a disk if we can't read and write it. The limitation behind current technology is the laser, not the size of the bit. Red and blue lasers have wavelengths of hundreds of nanometers, so there is no way we could read or write to the protein disks with current cheap laser technology. Blue lasers have smaller wavelengths, which is why blue-ray is able to store more data.
Once you get down to wavelengths in the tens of nanometers or smaller, we're talking UV and X-rays. Those aren't cheap, and they should be able to create smaller bits on their own! This protein technology is useless reading and writing it optically.
Check your basic physics. Nakamura has been instrumental in fabricating LEDs that have small mean wavelenghths (small compared to red). Microwaves, on the other hand, have relatively long wavelengths. Your comment has no relevance to the main topic. Really.
According to IGN this only applies to newly created virtual console games, not necessarily classic NES, SNES, and N64 games. That's a pretty crucial detail.
These books ruled. My two favorites (that I remember) were "Lair of the Lich" and "The Badlands of Hark"
Speaking of, I once had what I thought was a pretty good idea: A choose your own adventure meme for blogs. I'm not really sure how many slashdotters are also bloggers, but for those of you who are, let me know what you think. Here's the rules:
RULES
1. Post a comment to the blog post where you found this meme so that that blog owner can add a link to your post. In the comment describe what choice your post takes.
2. Repost these rules at the top of the post
3. Post a link at the top of your part of the story to the blog you got the meme from so people can read what has happened previously in the story.
4. Add your portion of the story. It can be open ended, and therefore a continuation, or it can be an ending. Feel free to write anything you want, and feel free to add pictures to spice it up, introduce a different protagonist, change the very setting of the story, etc.
5. If your portion of the story is open ended then add links within your portion or at the end to blogs that are continuing the story (ie link to people that comment on your post, see rule 1).
I started my own story on my blog, linked above.
Unfortunately the meme proved to be a flop, but perhaps it was just that the people who read my blog aren't very creative. If any of you slashdotters wish to continue my meme, or start your own story, let me know and I'll link to it. I think it has potential as a good way to get one's creative juices flowing, and has a big comedy upside.
Do we not want government employees to be accountable for what they say if it is false?
Wow, you're either being extremely disingenuous or simple minded here. You think that this ruling will help with governmental accountability? It will do the opposite.
Imagine a governmental employee sees something shady, but isn't positive of their interpretation of the event, so they send an email to a coworker discussing the incident. Under this ruling, they could be fired for the email!
Yes I'm assuming that email can be counted as an official communication. I'm sure that an attorney could successfully argue the case that an email sent from a governmental account, or even from any account during working hours could count as an official communication.
My point is that if employees are unable to discuss such matters with their coworkers to clarify things without fear of losing thier jobs, then they are much less likely to bring their concerns public. This ruling will decrease governmental accountability, not increase it as you seem to argue.
At last people might start realizing what a money dump this whole project is.
The defect problem is just one of many problems in manufacturing the CNT ribbon (eg it could take millions of years to grow a continuous ribbon, weaving them together is just not strong enough).
Common sense would dictate that we stop spending so much money on this project immediately. Carbon Nanotubes have many other applications on the cutting edge of technology, notably in nanoelectronics and sensors, that are much closer to fruition. Just as in the semiconductor industry, once these technologies mature we should see vast improvements in the growth process. Then we could turn to the space elevator problem, presumably with some defect-free growth process already in hand.
As it is we're just pouring money into a money pit of a dream impossible with today's technology. Typical of our government... missle defense anyone?
Well, the article says the light comes out the other end before the putting-in end has light going in
False, if you read the article nothing comes out the output end until the proceding edge of the light enters the input. The proceeding edge contains all the information about the light pulse, so causality is never violated and your thought experiment would never work.
1) Yeah this is true for the cars, but you also have to consider power generation of gasoline vs. power generation of coal (which is where we get most of our electricity). Also we should consider the amount of pollutant emmitted per watt for coal vs for gasoline. I believe (but have not checked) that coal puts out more pollution. Using those factors you could arrive at pollutant per watt for the cars themselves for the two technologies. It would be interesting to see which is higher (but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
2) ok
3) That's a good point, I agree that electric cars can be more efficient overall, but I think we agree that efficient technology can still be used in a stupid fashion.
IMO it was a good thing that electric cars didn't have the power that gas-powered cars did. The higher the power the more the energy wasted by every fool that does burnouts at stoplights and drag races. Now it looks like the cycle will continue. Since most of our electrical power comes from coal it looks like our air pollution isn't going to be decreasing anytime soon, although at least it will be more centralized.
On IGN.
Other unusual, and silly names, such as Google, Yahoo, and Ipod have all ended up being attached to very succesful companies/services/products. You'll have to admit Wii is very similar to Yahoo.
Why not have NASA focus again on engineering (i.e. putting people in space is primarily an engineering task) that pushes the edge of what is possible (e.g. manned lunar/Mars/asteroid rondesvous, etc) and leave the earth science to other countries that have fewer ties between their poiticians and their science programs (how about somewhere that actually signed Kyoto?).
Go back and read the article. Earth science is important to everyone who lives on the earth, and eats food produced on the earth. Near as I can tell, that includes the US, regardless of whether we signed the meaningless Kyoto treaty.
Your idea of having the world's biggest funder of science and most advanced scientifically country (the US) abandon an important branch of science like Earth science is at best glib, at worst foolish, short-sighted, and possibly malicious.
Oops, sorry about the lack of breaks, here's a more legible form of my comment:
I don't know specifics, but I don't see why the nanotube couldn't support electronic channels with bandwidths into the GHz or even higher as well.
Single-walled nanotube transistors operating at 2.6 GHz have been demonstrated (see Li et al. Nanoletters 2004 pg 753). Theoretical limits for CNT transistors are in the tens of GHz range (the limits come from the mobility of the electron). A caveat is that I believe the temperature was around 4 K.
Although nanotubes do have interesting characteristics different from typical metals and semiconductors. Ie, the electron-phonon interaction goes as 1/T, instead of 1/T^5 (where T is temperature). So at low temperatures there might be useful ways to couple electronic channels to vibrational modes not possible in conventional materials. Or vice versa, the phonon modes might more easily kill off electronic signals.
Actually vibrational modes (phonons) are usually detrimental to electronic circuits - they are the main source of electronic scattering, and heating of the device. One of the reasons SWNTs have elucidated so much interest is because they probably conduct ballistically (without scattering) at room temperature and lower for channel lengths as long as 1 micron (and low bias). At low temperatures you certainly wouldn't be coupling electronic channels to vibrational modes.
I don't know specifics, but I don't see why the nanotube couldn't support electronic channels with bandwidths into the GHz or even higher as well. Single-walled nanotube transistors operating at 2.6 GHz have been demonstrated (see Li et al. Nanoletters 2004 pg 753). Theoretical limits for CNT transistors are in the tens of GHz range (the limits come from the mobility of the electron). A caveat is that I believe the temperature was around 4 K. Although nanotubes do have interesting characteristics different from typical metals and semiconductors. Ie, the electron-phonon interaction goes as 1/T, instead of 1/T^5 (where T is temperature). So at low temperatures there might be useful ways to couple electronic channels to vibrational modes not possible in conventional materials. Or vice versa, the phonon modes might more easily kill off electronic signals. Actually vibrational modes (phonons) are usually detrimental to electronic circuits - they are the main source of electronic scattering, and heating of the device. One of the reasons SWNTs have elucidated so much interest is because they probably conduct ballistically (without scattering) at room temperature and lower for channel lengths as long as 1 micron (and low bias). At low temperatures you certainly wouldn't be coupling electronic channels to vibrational modes.
All nanotubes are made up of this graphene plane.
Actually, you can make nanotubes out of other materials besides carbon. Metallic nanotubes, for example, will have different crystal structures than the graphene hexagon.
A tube with 100 atoms will have 100 distinct oscillating modes.
No, it will have 300, one for each degree of freedom. However, three of these will be translational modes, which are not phonon modes, so really there will be 297 distinct phonon branches. In addition you should distinguish between the number of atoms in a Carbon Nanotube, and the number of atoms in its unit cell. A unit cell may have 100 atoms, but the entire nanotube can be made of 1000s of unit cells. The number of atoms in the unit cell is the important number for calculating phonons.
Even if all this analysis is wasted breath, if peak oil has certainly and suddenly hit and we're all staring at a future of expensive oil, even then, I'm still not worried. [R]ising oil prices are... an invitation to corn and coal and hydrogen. For anyone with a fresh idea, expensive oil is as good as a subsidy. Expensive oil only means we shift to something else, probably something cleaner, and I'm fine with that too.
I've seen that wired article you bring up, and it's simply ridiculous. Basically it says to use all the oil we have so that we'll be forced to develop new, cleaner technologies. What it doesn't address is whether such technologies that can replace oil even exist. All alternative energy sources have one or more of the following three problems:
1. Their pollution is as hard or worse to deal with than the pollution from conventional oil (see nuclear and coal power)
2. There is not near enough of it to replace oil (see wind, geo, and hydro power)
3. They have a low Energy Profit Ratio
The last is perhaps the hardest problem to deal with. Energy Profit Ratio is (Energy obtained)/(Energy Expended). Simply it's the amount of energy you get out of an energy source vs. the energy you put in to make that source viable. For example, until recently oil has had an EPR of 20, meaning for every barrel of oil's worth of energy you expend drilling for the oil, you get 20 barrels out. That is fantastic. Unfortunately alternative energy sources just don't compare to Oil's EPR. See this page for further disadvantages of alt. energy sources.
In terms of science, Wired doesn't know what it's talking about, and apparently neither do you. Quit using silly excuses like "The scientists will figure things out" to justify your extravagant western lifestyle when you clearly are ignorant about the subject.
I never called the robotics "trivial", I called them simple in comparison to the CNT ribbon. I am a materials scientist working on Carbon Nanotubes (to also reply to your post below), and while growth isn't my concentration, I do know from the literature that the fastest growth acheived for CNTs is 10-100 microns/sec.
Now CNTs are only strong if they are continuous. In other words, if you spin a thread of them the tube to tube bonding would probably not be strong enough for the elevator. So to build the ribbon you have to grow continuous nanotubes to the length you want the ribbon. If we assume the upper limit on the nanotube growth rate I stated above, then it would take approximately half a million years to grow one mile of ribbon.
Since I'm not working directly on the ribbon I could be wrong about a few things, but the point is that there are several very tough technological obstacles to growing the ribbon. In contrast the climbers build on technology we already have, so that's why I said they are simple to build in comparison to the ribbon.
This is just a meaningless press release meant to drumm up publicity.
The tough thing in building a space elevator is fabricating the Carbon Nanotube ribbon. Making the robots that move up and down the ribbon is relatively simple by comparison.
If my hazy memory of high school biology holds true, that "rocketship" virus is the T7 phage that attacks tabacco.
Nintendo holds the patents to stop this, at least in the immediate future.
I would have thought that these collions would have resulted in temperatures much higher than that.
Any particular reason you would think the temperature should be much higher than 6000C, or are you just making noise?
How can you take that magazine seriously when they make statements like these?
"Working with individual ions is key to building powerful computing machines that will exploit quantum physics -- instead of transistors
Transistors exploit quantum physics! Transistors work because of the laws of QM - they were designed after the QM describing solid state objects was formlated. The classical analog is vacuum tubes.
PS3 will play Blue Ray DVDs, which gives it a substantial advantage over the other two systems since no one has a Blue Ray player yet.
Why do people come so willingly to evolution's defense? The lack of a rigorous formulation makes it vulnerable. It provides a plausible explanation for the origin of species, but has no predictive power at all. Even the theory of econometrics is more developed in this sense. If I were a biologist or an geneticist I would be embarrassed at the state of the field.
No predictive power? Have you ever heard of DNA? The theory of evolution predicted its existance, because there would have to be some physical way of organisms passing their traits to their offspring while at the same time allowing for variablity.
Also evolution predicts the existance of intermediates, such as archaeopteryx in the fossil record.
Perhaps you should learn something about a subject before you argue about its validity.
Grey goo, if I remember from that Bill Joy piece, is enrestrained entropy
That's not what Kurzweil was talking about. He was talking about Drexler's vision of grey goo as self-replicating nanobots. See the wikipedia article I linked if you're still confused.
The current arrangement you and I are familiar with exists in spite of the entropy constantly working to disassemble us and everything around us.
This statement is just silly. Entropy isn't some evil force trying to "disasemble us". In fact your living processes increase the entropy of the universe. In a way, we help entropy. We wouldn't exist if we didn't.