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."

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.

Author Damien Broderick on future of work, fun & learning

from the nanoenthusiasm-from-down-under dept.
Senior Associate Dave Sag (davesag) writes "Damien Broderick, author of The Spike which discussed the predicted tangential upcurve in technology leading to a singularity in an upbeat and enthusiastic way which got him quite some press, has been interviewed on an Australian educational site called Learnscope. It's weird. He disses the International Space Station but seems convinced that nanotech will really be the duck's nuts (to coin a phrase). He speculates on the future of work, fun and learning. It's a shame there isn't a nanodot category called 'pop-sci good times'."

Gates says computers will not save the world

from the atoms-not-bits dept.
Senior Associate Brian Hall [brian] writes "Will computer technology save the world? Not according to Mr. Gates. From this article at The Observer, Bill says he's been "very, very naive" about the promises of Technology in helping the billions of people in the world whose greatest question is NOT things like Linux vs. M$, but rather is there any food to eat or clean water to drink? As an idealist, this is good news(tm) since Bill's bucks could actually make a difference."

Foresight conference stimulates "Future Lust"

from the lusting-for-nanotech dept.
An item by digitech posted on slashdot by Senior Associate Jeff "Hemos" Bates brings our attention to a piece at Reason titled "More More More: Nanotechnology and the Law of Accelerating Returns" by Ronald Bailey on the recent Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology. Excerpts: "[Kurzweil's keynote] predictions of superfast progress received a sympathetic hearing at this gathering of around 400 nanotechnologists. That's hardly surprising of course: That's exactly what they are working to achieve…the fact is that very few practical nanodevices have made it out of the labs yet. Still, given an inkling of what the future may hold, I suffer not from Future Shock, but Future Lust."

Peter Schwartz in Red Herring on nanotechnology

from the he-sponsored-our-first-nanoconference dept.
Global Business Network chairman and Foresight Advisor Peter Schwartz, author of The Long Boom, writes about nanotechnology in his Scenarios column in Red Herring: "No idea has gone from wild, fringe science to the dead center of mainstream research faster than nanotechnology. Perhaps the impact of nanotechnology will be felt just as rapidly…There are early hints that the first commercial nanotechnologies are not far off. Venture capital is already beginning to flow toward nanotechnology companies…Nanotechnology's development is inevitable: it's only a matter of when and where. Will it be in the United States now, or somewhere else later?" CP: Or somewhere else now? The U.S. lead may not be strong.

Nanomedicine story in Red Herring

from the curing-Martian-cancer dept.
Quite a long story on nanomedicine appears in the "business of technology" magazine Red Herring. The main focus is the collaboration between NASA, the National Cancer Institute, and Caltech: "Nanotechnology–the art and science of the vanishingly small device–used to be easy to dismiss as so much blue sky. It's not so easy anymore, now that three of the nation's biggest scientists have thrown their weight behind a project to create molecule-size medical technologies by 2020, in time for the first manned mission to Mars." CP: Hey, any excuse is fine with us, even Mars. [Errata: Pierluigi Zappacosta wishes to point out that it was Jim Bennett, not himself, who co-founded Foresight Institute, as claimed in their timeline.]

Who can jump the biotech-to-nanotech gap?

from the bio-is-a-subset-of-nano dept.
Lots of folks ask, in which public companies can I invest today in order to ride the nanotech wave as it occurs? Some companies in the biotech sector will be able to make the jump to nanotech as that begins to make sense commercially. An excellent prospect is ArQule, a profitable public company which was named individualinvestor.com's Stock of the Day last Friday. An excerpt from that story on Yahoo: "The company also has announced a venture with privately held Nanosyn, a research consortium concentrating on the still-developing nanotechnology [emphasis added] sector." Disclaimer: the above is personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of any organization. Moreover, it is the personal opinion of someone who is not rich. Invest at your own risk.

Effect of private investment on nanotechnology

from the money-is-nice-but-less-politics-is-better dept.
In the 20 October Science (free registration req'd), Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy sketches the effect of private money on basic research. One topic discussed is "the declining relative state of scientific equipment and facilities in the research universities. I say relative because the equipment and the buildings aren't really that bad, except in comparison with what is available in the new companies, many of them startups, that now perform an increasing fraction of the kind of basic research that used to be an academic monopoly. The availability of venture capital and the liveliness of our entrepreneurial culture have radically altered the character of commercial science, attaching financial opportunity to the nascent front end of the innovation cycle. Molecular and cell biology, nanotechnology [emphasis added], and computer science are among the disciplines that have been transformed by this migration." CP: It's true that there's plenty of private money available for nanotechnology companies. Tenure-track professors are hearing the siren song. But I disagree on one point: what these refugees dislike most in academia is the politics, not obsolete equipment.

0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop