Donate
Donate

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Month: December 2000

Clinton on nanotech: "potential is breathtaking"

from the sounds-like-he-gets-it dept.
In an interview with Science posted at Yahoo, outgoing President Clinton said: "[Most] people still don't know what nanotechnology is. But if you combine the sequencing of the human gene and the capacity to identify genetic variations that lead to various kinds of cancers with the potential of nanotechnology, you get to the point where, in the imagination, you're identifying cancers when, assuming you have the screening technologies right, there are only a few cells coagulated together in this mutinous way, so that you raise the prospect of literally having 100 percent cure and prevention rate for every kind of cancer, which is something that would have been just unimaginable before…And I think the work we've done in nanotechnology in 10, 20 years from now will look very big, indeed. I just think that the potential of this is just breathtaking, and it will change even the way we think about things like calculation or what we're supposed to know how to do. It will — it's going to really, I think, have a huge and still under-appreciated impact on our understanding of human processes and our capacity to do things."

Nanotech & MEMS working together

from the MEMS-helps-with-NEMS dept.
A recent article in Technology Review, Nanotech Goes to Work, looks at near-term (mostly top-down) research. Excerpt: "The reliance on AFM tips and cantilevers illustrates a decidedly mechanical bent in much of today's nanotech research. Indeed, the strategy of using small silicon-based machines called MEMS (microelectromechanical systems) to manipulate nano devices is turning out to be an especially promising area." Includes obligatory (for TR) swipes at those interested in molecular nanotechnology ("enthusiasts", "purists").

"Atom Optics" becomes a reality

from the first-assembler-in-vacuum-or-liquid? dept.
Senior Associate Alison Chaiken writes "A recent new message from the ever-wonderful (and free) "Physics News Update" highlights progress in the developing field of "atom optics". When last we left our heroes, Jurg Schmiedmayer and colleagues from the University of Innsbruck had used electromagnetic fields and logic circuits on an IC to guide beams of atoms with high resolution, implying an obvious extension to a computer-controllable high-precision atom placement technique. Now several groups in Europe have come up with new innovations that could lead to the "atomic ink-jet printer" and the "atom-coupled device." Once folks start moving Bose-Einstein condensates this way, all kinds of exciting advanced fabrication techniques may become possible. I'm still betting that the first "assembler" will be an ultra-high vacuum chamber with a bunch of lasers and well-controlled electromagnetic fields. I'd be thrilled if all you organic chemists can prove me wrong!" Read More for the Physics News Update article.

Rate of progress: slowing or speeding up?

from the US-News-vs-Reason dept.
Tony (asnapier) writes "Here are two articles that are very much worth reading: #1 The Slowing Rate of Progress and #2 [mentioned on nanodot earlier] More More More Nanotechnology and the Law of Accelerating Returns Which one is correct? The initial reaction is to say #2. I have come to the conclusion that geometric growth will only happen if strong AI is realized — which of course, is the very definition of Vinge's singularity. What if strong AI does not emerge? Then the argument for slowing growth appears valid — human minds and mundane information systems would be the bottleneck to rapid advancement (you have to read the articles for the proper context — of course science and technology advance every day — but a new dvd player does not count as a fundamental improvement of the human condition)." CP: The US News piece ends: "Perhaps another Thomas Edison is hard at work, using nanotechnology or bioengineering to invent new machines that are truly revolutionary and transforming. But he or she has not succeeded yet."

Review: "Evolution Isn't What It Used To Be"

from the nanotech-defined-as-protein-only dept.
David Coutts writes about the book Evolution Isn't What It Used To Be: The Augmented Animal and the Whole Wired World by Walter Truett Anderson: "In his brief mention of nanotechnology he says: 'The third generation, which – depending upon what you read – may never come or may be just around the corner, is nanotechnology: miniscule protein computers, submicroscopic protein machines that will sail through the bloodstream to fight disease or repair damage to the body'…He has limited the nanotechnology vision to a third generation protein building tool…This is either laziness, ignorance or a peculiar form of psychological blindness or phobia I shall dub nanophobia. So, whilst I would agree that skepticism of a largely unproven technology is entirely healthy, the author should try and present the full picture or at least clearly state that the working definition of nanotechnology (for any book or article) is deliberately limited by the author." Read More for the full post.

Turing code For nanomachines?

from the please-not-in-Java dept.
vik writes "I was attracted by a slashdot article on 8-bit Java VM's implemented using a Turing Machine backend. With Turing Machines being conceptually simple, the design put forward by Bernard Hodson has relevance to nanotechnology in that we'll want to get the simplest possible hardware running the smallest possible software. Probably not in Java, but the principles still hold. If construction command sequences can be compressed in a similar way, assembler control machinery could be greatly simplified."

Policy Wonk Advocates Government "Control" of NT

from the Keeping-Nanotech-Safe-for-Democracy dept.
A lengthy article in The Washington Monthly ("Downsizing," by N. Thompson, October 2000) makes an interesting case for government involvement and even regulation of nanotechnology development: "Deep government involvement in nanotechnology is more than a practical obligation from a research and national defense perspective. It's close to becoming a moral imperative."

Kurzweil vs. Dertouzos debate future technology

from the who-won? dept.
Joseph Sterlynne writes "MIT's Technology Review has printed an exchange between Ray Kurzweil and Michael Dertouzos regarding the latter's recent article on reasonable expectations of technological progress." Kurzweil: "As for nanotechnology-based self-replication, that's further out, but the consensus in that community is this will be feasible in the 2020s, if not sooner." Dertouzos: "We have no basis today to assert that machine intelligence will or will not be achieved…Attention-seizing, outlandish ideas are easy and fun to concoct."

More nanotech skepticism

from the nanotech-not-interesting-enough dept.
Sharad Bailur writes "I read David Coutts's review of Matt Ridley's opinion on Nanotech with interest. Coincidentally I also am reading the book [Genome] and have just gone thru the chapter he mentions. I think Ridley's scepticism is shared by many other established scientists. Dr M. Vidyasagar, the former head of the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics of the Defence Research and Development Organisation of the Ministry of Defence, here in India, said that while nanotech is feasible it will have to prove itself over time and that he found the concept of reverse logic operations more interesting. There have been similar reactions from others about nanotech, Michio Kaku's being the most famous one which was posted here some days ago. I think a healthy scepticism and an open mind are necessary. Nanotech is not a religion. Nor does it need convinced acolytes." CP: However, a large engineering project does need those who are committed to making feasibility into reality, and it is they who will win the race.

Design for quantum computer proposed

from the there-goes-public-key? dept.
Senior Associate GinaMiller brings to our attention an article in EE Times "Design for quantum computer proposed. Work at IBM Corp. on the theory and practice of quantum computing suggests that the industry may be closer to practical CPUs that could process information in the form of quantum bits, or "qubits," rather than conventional binary bits. The new thinking was discussed today (Dec. 11) in a plenary lecture at the IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting here. David DiVincenzo of IBM's T. J. Watson Research Center (Yorktown Heights, N.Y.) surveyed the prospects for quantum computing, concluding that practical, solid-state devices may soon emerge to support the theoretical projections of vast computing power arising from this technology."

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

      Search Foresight Institute