Donate
Donate

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Month: June 2000

Beginner's Guide to Complexity

from the might-as-well-learn-to-love-it dept.
Think you can handle complexity? We ain't seen nothin' yet. Get ready by tooling up at the Guide to Complex Systems. It's nowhere near complete, but it's complex enough to get you started if you're new to the field–better start now if you hope to be able to handle the next few decades. (If you know of better sites for this purpose, please comment below.)

Must We Technologists Interact with Government?

from the to-lobby-or-not-to-lobby dept.
A relatively high-quality debate is developing on how to preserve/enhance Internet freedom and privacy. Should we attempt to use government-related mechanisms (lobbying, lawsuits) or focus on technical innovation as our primary tool? Eric Raymond, Lawrence Lessig of Harvard–both openness proponents–and three others debate in round 3. Let's try to pick up some pointers we can use on the same question for nanotech: ignore government or try to work with it? Regardless of the right answer for the Internet, nanotech folks may need to do the latter, operating as we do in meatspace, not cyberspace. What do you think?

Geckos use 200-nm hairs to climb

from the no,-literally-climbing-the-walls dept.
ChrisPhoenix writes "Researchers have discovered how gecko lizards stick to walls and ceilings. They have 500,000 hairs on each foot; each one subdivides into hundreds of 200-micron 'spatulae'. They speculate that these hairs are small enough to use the van der Waals force to adhere to, well, anything–even glass. A single hair will support 20 milligrams. Now they're talking about manufacturing similar stuff for robotics applications. A remaining puzzle: how does the gecko keep its feet clean?"

You can view an SF Chronicle article if you hurry, or some cool pictures and movies on the researchers' web site.

Dangers of Nanotech "Relinquishment"

from the just-say-no-to-just-say-no dept.
More debate on the issues raised in the press recently by Bill Joy, this time by Foresight board member Glenn Reynolds, writing for IntellectualCapital.com: 'Rather than too much technology, as Joy suggests, perhaps the problem is that we have too little. In the early days of nanotechnology, dangerous technologies may enjoy an advantage. Once the technology matures, it is likely that dangerous uses can be contained. The real danger of the sort of limits Joy proposes is that they may retard the development of constructive technologies, thus actually lengthening the window of vulnerability.'

Nanotech's effect on Intellectual Property

from the creators-create-cause-that's-what-they-do dept.
Dan Gillmor, columnist for the San Jose Mercury News and Foresight Senior Associate, looks at what happens to intellectual property when nanotechnology arrives. Foresight board member Glenn Reynolds is quoted: "When jets are so cheap I can make one in my back yard, it may be the case that society is so wealthy we'll do airplanes for free anyway." Foresight chairman Eric Drexler wonders "if I see something, can I make a copy?" Dan clarifies "In other words, will he be allowed to remember what he saw?" Dan concludes "Maybe, in 100 years, spaceship design will be an open-source project." Hmm, we could start that project right now…

Jef Raskin's The Humane Interface

from the can-there-be-a-truce-between-humans-and-computers? dept.
Senior Associate DickKarpinski writes "Jef Raskin's new book, The Humane Interface, is just out and everybody who cares to understand why computers are so hard to use, and how to fix them, should read it." Why should we care? The day is coming fast when the line blurs between computers and the human brain. If you'd prefer not to get that intimate with today's software, we need to get this straightened out soon. This book was found very useful by Foresight chairman Eric Drexler, and quite a few others who got it as a freebie at the Gathering, courtesy of Dick (thanks, Dick!).

Possible Model for Nanotech: Open Source Standards

from the please-no-chatting-committees dept.
If we want standards that actually work in new areas such as nanotech, we can't rely on committees chatting. GinaMiller points out an article in EE Times describing the aggressive movement of open source into a new area. Proponents of open source have formed their own new industry organization, describing the old proprietary ways as resulting in "mess" and "despair". Those favoring the old ways claim they use "dignified standards bodies that have gone about their business on an appropriate time schedule" (emphasis added). But new technologies aren't developed on an "appropriate" time schedule–they come much faster.

First Draft Map of the Human Genome Completed

from the turn-left-at-IL2;-you-can't-miss-it dept.
William Dye writes "No doubt most Nanodot readers already know that a complete first-draft map of the human genome will be be announced on Monday. Slashdot posted a discussion article about the matter, based on a CNN story, but if anyone has some thoughts specific to the strong-MNT mindset, Nanodot is probably a better place to start the discussion. Public & private funding, intellectual property issues, lawmakers, ethical concerns, technical details, enormous potential medical benefits, all centered on really really tiny stuff — it's a pretty good testbed for MNT-related ideas."

Sounds like sf: Nanotech report from IOP

from the when-they-say-it-it's-"realistic" dept.
Senior Associate Gina Miller points out the new Technical Brief on Nanotechnology from Institute of Physics, which also publishes the journal Nanotechnology including Foresight's conference papers. See also story at AlphaGalileo: "Minute machines that can travel inside the body, gears that depend on atoms repelling each other and molecular alternatives to semiconductors are ideas that, even ten years ago, would have seemed impossible. Nanotechnology – producing machines and systems at molecular levels (an atom is around 0.3 nanometres in diameter) – is turning these ideas into reality, bringing changes to computing, communication, aerospace and medicine."

Develop Nanotechnology using Open Source Methods?

from the one-for-all-and-all-for-one dept.
ChrisPeterson writes "Bryan Bruns has prepared Nanotechnology and the Commons: Implications of Open Source Abundance in Millennial Quasi-Commons which addresses the interaction between nanotechnology and open source: 'Exploring a few of the many possible consequences of nanotechnology indicates how it might bring profound implications for the management of existing commons and the creation of new commons…Nanotechnology itself could be developed as an abundant common property information resource, a new commons, applying the principles behind open source computer software.' "

Facebook Twitter Youtube Linkedin Podcast Spotify
0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop
    Continue Shopping

      Search Foresight Institute