Donate
Donate

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Author: Allison

Reduce agony of learning chemistry for nanotech

from the who-needs-lectures dept.
To do nanotechnology, one had better know a lot of chemistry. Chemistry is often poorly taught, so going to school isn't necessarily the answer. Instead, or in addition, get started with Bonding II from Cybered, reviewed in the 15 Dec 2000 issue of Science: "Bonding II provides electronic instruction on the basics of chemistry. Packaged on a Macintosh/Windows hybrid CD-ROM, the tutorial contains a narrated set of modules covering fundamental concepts for a freshman-level chemistry class." At $130, this is a lot cheaper than a college class, but we'd prefer an open source version: anybody know of one? Meanwhile, Cybered has other chemistry modules as well.

Defense Graduate Fellowships in Nanotechnology

from the tax-dollars-at-work dept.
The U.S. National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship Program, administered by the American Society for Engineering Education, is offering up to 35 new graduate fellowships in nanotechnology beginning in Fall 2001. The U.S. Dept. of Defense is sponsoring interdisciplinary fellowships focusing in nanoelectronics, nanomaterials, and bionanotechnology. Application deadline is January 17, 2001.

Headline mailings return

from the he's-slow-as-heck-but-he-works-cheap dept.
As a side-effect of the relocation of the Nanodot server, the nightly and weekly headline mailings were being sent to nowhere. I recently became aware of the problem and fixed it, so you should be receiving these mailings much more regularly than previously.

Dave

Now: MEMS is nanotechnology?

from the that's-different dept.
Oldtimers among you will recall when nanotechnology was anathema to the MEMS community, who viewed it as science fiction. Now nanotech is such a (fundable) buzzword that MEMS is being repositioned as nanotechnology by "Trends in Nanotechnology", based in Europe. Elsewhere in the issue appears this: "We're going to make just one prediction, which is that the use of the word nanotechnology will see explosive growth in the coming year. Unfortunately, most of this growth is likely to represent bandwagon-jumping." Ironic, yes? Read More for the repositioning quote.

Mitsubishi Corp. to sponsor fullerene workshop

from the sooty-tubes-for-profit dept.
Bryan Hall writes "A press release on yahoo news reports that Mitsubishi Corp. is sponsoring an international meeting in Tokyo to discuss the state-of-the-art technology and strategies for commercializing fullerene nanotubes. The Mitsubishi International Fullerene Workshop 2001, Feb. 20-21, will feature keynote speeches from Nobel Prize winners and fullerene co-discoverers Richard E. Smalley and Sir Harold W. Kroto. Donald R. Huffman, the University of Arizona co-inventor of the method for producing commercial quantities of fullerenes, will chair a discussion on super-hard carbon material. Other sessions will include panel discussions and lectures on applied research and development." See the symposium website.

Difficulty of enforcing ethical standards

from the tough-question dept.
Sharad Bailur writes …I don't see the development in the forseeable future, of a system which is valid the world over, in which ethical standards which everybody agrees should be followed, are enforced. For instance how does one explain the millions of computer viruses floating around in the internet ether? If ethical standards cannot be enforced by some sort of international agreement, they will be followed more as an exception rather than as a rule. Besides, how does one enforce international agreements in the face of competing national sovereignties? We can at best by today's means isolate and blockade certain countries like Libya, Iraq and North Korea. In the face of a nanotech future these measures are surely hopelessly inadequate. How do we deal with this?" Read More for the full post.

Chemical fabrication of ultrahigh-density arrays of nanopores

from the go-self-assembly dept.
Senior Associate MarkMuhlestein writes "This looks like interesting work, reported in the Dec 15 Science. If you have access, the entire article is at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5499/2126 Here's the abstract: Science, 290, 2126 (15 Dec 2000) 'We show a simple, robust, chemical route to the fabrication of ultrahigh-density arrays of nanopores with high aspect ratios using the equilibrium self-assembled morphology of asymmetric diblock copolymers. The dimensions and lateral density of the array are determined by segmental interactions and the copolymer molecular weight. Through direct current electrodeposition, we fabricated vertical arrays of nanowires with densities in excess of 1.9 x 10^11 wires per square centimeter. We found markedly enhanced coercivities with ferromagnetic cobalt nanowires that point toward a route to ultrahigh-density storage media. The copolymer approach described is practical, parallel, compatible with current lithographic processes, and amenable to multilayered device fabrication.' Thurn-Albrecht et al., U Mass @ Amherst, IBM Watson, LANL"

On ethics: engineers compared to programmers

from the is-there-a-programmers-code-of-ethics dept.
An engineer points out that the engineering professions have codes of ethics that guide them in designing for safety and in communicating with the public, and that these are not being followed by some programmers: "It seems to me that as a nanomechanical engineer (or rather a mechanical engineer with an interest in nanomechanics), I was permanently "conditioned" to always think of the ethics behind a design by "upping the safety factor" on my design. If your daily dealing with deadly machines — or rather machines that can cause harm to the public — then as an engineer I am obligated to design something that has a higher safety factor than someone who designs air conditioning systems. This fact, or rather a standard rule of engineering practice, has been overlooked by Joy and his counterparts…My point is this, that as a general rule engineers create highly reliable systems that must have a certain safety factor included whenever there is the slightest chance of harm to the public. I, or rather we, as engineers (Civil, mechanical, (High power) Electrical), are always worried about the safety factors we have set on a design…I think I might be over simplifying the issue but ultimately I have a hard time understanding why so many programmers are a) claiming to have a solid understanding of safety factors when their job has only a few instances for life or death of the public and b), if they follow the same code of ethics set forth by the state governmental systems, why is it they are not lumped together with the rest of the classically trained engineers? One other thing, if they are, then didn't they see that part in the ethics section about slandering or speaking out to the public on something in which they have no educated knowledge?… I would love to hear what the software "engineers" have to say about this particular essay in order for me to learn more about their trade." Read More for the full post.

Last chance to have your 2000 donation doubled

from the and-now-a-word-from-our-sponsor dept.
Sunday, December 31, is the last day to have your tax-year-2000 donation to Foresight doubled by our $35,000 Challenge Grant. To get your year 2000 U.S. federal tax deduction: donate online, fax, or write your check by tomorrow. (Donations to Foresight are tax-deductible in the U.S. to the full extent allowed by law.) Save more by donating stock. Read more for the various options, from $5K and up, down to $45 or even $0.

Engineers seen as unable to make moral decisions

from the who-else-is-even-paying-attention? dept.
From a Newsweek article on MSNBC on the coming age of cyborgs: "Who, then, can speak on moral issues? Certainly not the engineers. Ellen Ullman, a former computer programmer and the author of the 1997 book Close to the Machine: Technology and Its Discontents, says that 'the problem is not the technology, which in any event canít be stopped. The problem is that engineers are making decisions for the rest of us.' Programmers are hired guns, she says, and rarely understand in a nuanced way their clientsí actual work. They are, she says, the last people 'to understand what is an acceptable risk.' " CP: In Foresight's experience, programmers and engineers are far more attentive to ethical issues in technology than members of other professions.

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

      Search Foresight Institute