As I myself am dealing with issues of aging parents I will openly acknowledge that this may be one of the singular advantages of cell phones. But that could be extended to emphasize the point -- you only need some minutes of cell phone connection time per year. Having just spent an hour in a mall trying to determine how to untie two cell phones (including my 86 y.o. father's) from TracPhone and Net10 (the phones have SIM cards -- it should be possible to UnBrick them and break the addiction -- in contrast to Sprint and Verizon who claimed they would not sell cell phones with SIM cards -- thus addicting you to *their* service (as far as I understand the technology).

Why is there not a class action suit against cell phone providers regarding monopoly practices? I thought we had laws against this.

As someone who recently allowed my Net10 phone subscription (note "subscription" -- not "contract") to expire (though I could probably with some amount of effort unbricked the phone); I am forced to ask *why* are people willing to pay $500+ per year to be able to talk to people whenever they feel like it [1]? What is so all fired important about being "connected" 24/7 when most of us can be connected 18/7 without any additional payments (being connected at work or home) and we presumably have to sleep 6-8 of those 24?

So far in my memory 9/11 has only happened once in a decade and the probability of securing a cell phone connection during that period would fall into a category that I would call "iffy". So what is the point?

Obviously if one is paying a phone company $500+ per year one is paying them $5000+ over ten years and I can think of much better alternatives for such a sum than an extortion fee simply to talk to people.

1. Or allow them to disturb you whenever *they* feel like it?

Ok, having grown up in the era from 8088's to current reality intermixed with "real" CPUs, i.e. DEC PDP-10/11 CPUS (and I've got the processor handbooks sitting in my bookcase). You lay out a premise. That "Intel CPUs/MMUs had memory protection. I would assert that they did not (given the memory protection allowed on a DEC-PDP-11/45 or 70 circa 1974-1982.

And so we have to compare the CPU handbooks of the 1970's CPUs (real computers) against the 1980's or 90's CPUs (toy computers).

And the bottom line will come done to this -- was Microsoft Windows 95 a secure operating system? Compared with AT&T Bell Labs Unix or BSD Unix circa 1974-1980. And by that question I mean did the operating system take full advantage of what the hardware provided to guarantee and enforce user security.

So we have a tipping point, either you argue that Intel released chips without robust memory management that created the ongoing virus propagating culture because PCs are not secure, or you argue that Microsoft, by not taking available of hardware capabilities to protect the software (which I would argue was not done until Windows 2000), promoted the growth of the "lets use PC's to compromise PC's" culture.

I await a response documenting that the 8088/8086 had memory protection capabilities (give me the pin number on the chip -- I can go to that level). I further await a detailed explanation as to when Microsoft released operating systems actually made use of them.

And yep, I'm a "nutcase". But as a suggestion -- one best handle "nutcases" carefully -- one never knows what other qualities the box contains.

Oh, wait, I forgot, there is not a slashdot/gmail filter that falls under the heading of "I'm still stupid enough to run windows being the case in point of a virus ridden insecure operating system because it isn't open sourced."

Google has managed to get it right. Only show people news (or advertisements) with significant relevance to the viewer. I'm sorry, I've used Unix since 1974, and although there was a brief period of time when I engaged with Windows in the mid-to-late '90s, I'm now back with Linux.

What was it that Forrest once said... Stupid is as stupid does.

Please report on whether the vulnerabilities might perhaps impact programs typically run under Linux. I run almost entirely open source but that does not mean that could be immune to exploits. Simply means we can resolve them much faster.

Ok, yes, I caught the math mistake. Its 7,700 engineers working on nanotechnology for 10 years (even if one isn't outsourcing them from India or China). Still, given that I can count on two hands the number of really qualified nanoengineers that exist in the world today. It sounds like Intel would have some serious job training efforts required to utilize their funds effectively.

Interesting point, as I read that there are many cash rich companies who have waded through the recent downturn. Why aren't more of them spending their resources on building the future -- rather than maintaining the past?

There should be a CEO, or at least Members of the Board, who are saying to the individual who decided to spend $7.7B in cash for a virus surveying company (which we all know would not have existed, had not Windows 95 been released on insecurable hardware manufactured by Intel...)[1] The answer is simple. Everyone runs Linux and the McAfee investment turns out to be a boondoggle. Now I realize that may not be easy, but there is an argument that every single Linux fan reading /. should be down at their local town hall meeting citing the municipality of Munich. If they can do it we should do it -- and we should do it across the board and make both Microsoft and Intel pay for their sins. [2]

1. Point of order, for those tracking this, prior to the 8086/8088 UNIX ran on minicomputers (mostly manufactured by DEC) or before that on hardware manufactured by IBM, Honeywell, etc. And those CPUs had hardware with memory protection which prevented on from scribbling outside of ones address space. I.e. on the hardware of that era one could not corrupt other programs (most importantly the O.S.). Intel led us into an era in which the hardware could no longer secure itself. Interesting that now some 15-20 years later they are making an effort to clean up the mess they created.

2. An entirely side argument would be to say to the Intel Board -- "Buying a virus scanning company for $7.7B is the best you can do with such cash?" My god, what about nanotechnology development. Please someone tell me that my numbers are wrong -- but it looks to me like $7.7B could pay 77,000 engineers ($100K/yr) for 10 years). And that would put us a hell of a lot closer to "real molecular nanotechnology" than we are today. Oh wait, Intel doesn't want "real molecular nanotechnology" because once it hits I have no reason to pay Intel a microprocessor tax. Now it all makes sense...

"Who cares?" Studies have already shown that many engineers view Twitter/Facebook as a waste of time. So you have a "popular" medium which is more or less ignored by the people building the future. If one ascribes to a theory that most future perspectives are written by individuals within a high Asperger's framework (no references but simply IMO) then one would view better social networking capabilities with a big yawn.

The fact that someone is dying whose brain may be relatively intact gives you a lot of options. Only in the situation where the cancer was observed to have metastasised to her brain and created an abundance of tumors would I consider going the route you seem to be considering (saving the memories in a digital video/audio/written approximation).

If the cancer has not/does not metastasise to the brain the *best* thing to do is to consider whole body, or in the case of disseminated cancer, "head" (brain) cryonic suspension. I will assert that until the cancer, or you indirectly through cremation or burial, has caused a significant disassembly of the cells and synapses which contain the memories of an individual that individual IS NOT IRREVOCABLY DEAD. They are simply beyond the reach of current technologies to present the appearance of what we consider to be "alive". There is a range of states from alive to "disassembled" and unfortunately society and most backgrounds lock us into a two-state mentality. I have told and will continue to tell people in facing this situation that considering cyronics is the only rational thing to do. You may choose not to exercise that option, and there may be legitimate reasons for doing so, financial, not wanting loved ones to have to deal with semi-alive/dead states, etc. but not doing so is irrational.

I personally know the people such as Greg Fahy, Ralph Merkle, Robert Freitas and others who have worked on improving the methods of cryonic suspension and methods for eventual reanimation. These are very serious (and very bright) individuals whose commitment to this area isn't going to go away and is highly likely to eventually yield positive results (IMO).

There is also the prospect that cures to cure her cancer may be developed in the not so distant future. If it were me personally and I didn't want to take the suspension route (which involved legally "dying") I would consider a "suspended animation" route which would involve a low temperature coma state or a H2S induced "suspension state" (which would be considered "risky" to "experimental" in conventional medical circles). I would then make sure I got a set of cancer biopsy samples to a lab capable of "extreme cutting edge" genomic medicine [1] to answer the precise question of "what genetic mutations have occurred in this/these cancer(s) and what specific drugs are available to target those pathways?" [2]. Some pathway specific drugs are available now. More will be under development. Until such time as one can produce a "cocktail" of drugs, perhaps combined with site-specific nano-targeting methodology, one should pursue a strategy which slows down the individuals "rate-of-living", thus "suspended animation", as much as possible. It may be that this would require an individual to be kept barely alive for 5-10 or more years but this is not outside the realm of medical capabilities at this point (though it would likely be quite expensive). You would also have to locate a team of individuals willing to be this "experimental" with a human life.

1. For example one would want to be able to "match" the patient with one or more of the cancers being studied in the various "Cancer Genome Atlas/Anatomy Projects" which will eventually have analysed and classified tens of thousands of cancers.
2. If you are not dealing with an oncologist or oncologist team which can tell you specifically *what* oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes are broken in the current cancer you are dealing with "snake-oil" physicians. Cancer genomics is *way* beyond the stage of surgery/radiation/toxic-drugs which have worked in the past yet most oncologists have probably not moved beyond those as the standard therapies.

Yes, you understand the consequences and implications. But it begs the question -- how do we get us "there" ("there" being general purpose molecular assembly with workers with an ~$0/hr salary) [1]. We can speculate on what such a reality may be like but that does not get us any closer to it. Discussing what it will be like is less productive than discussing how to get there.

[1] There is no "free lunch". Nanorobots require energy and such can/would be harvested from the planet/atmosphere; they also have to dissipate heat; so there are very "laws of physics" determined limits to how many nanorobots one can have on the planet operating at any point in time. The estimate by Robert Freitas is ~10kg nanorobots per person. Which is more than sufficient for the needs of most individuals.

"When you want better visions -- study the visionaries" (me, though I expect others have said it...)

In that respect:
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Engineering/Drexler-KE/index.html

The M.S. thesis (which I have read) is particularly interesting as it details concepts of nanotechnology before they may have been fully formed in Eric's mind.

Your point is reasonable but I would add a few points. We don't really have general purpose factory factories (i.e. factories whose function is to produce so many factories that everyone can have one -- for extremely low cost or free). If one has the open design of a replicator and 10kg of general purpose manufacturing nanorobots [1] then everyone can have one in an extremely short period of time.

The problem with putting people out of work (unions et al) is that there is a mindset that one has to have a job to survive. A general purpose nanofactory (replicator) eliminates that concept. That is why the development of nanofactories and replicators has to be driven by people who realise they are going to "break" much of current reality. No more need for most "jobs", factories as we know them, many companies as we know them, even governments as we know them.

Mind you there will still be things to do. The fields of design (of nano-thingys) and entertainment (of the masses who no longer need to work) have pretty much unlimited potential.

1. 10kg of nanorobots per person on the Earth, operating at 100% of their capacity, hits the heat (hypsithermal) limits of the Earth.

It isn't the scale that is the critical factor. It is the capabilities. Why do we not have (currently) automobile manufacturing factory factories? I.e. why not are the elements of automobile factory manufacturing factories rolling out of factories. In which case automobiles should be cost at X% above the basic manufacturing cost (as Ford made them perhaps). If one has an automobile manufacturing factory in ones garage (indeed in every garage), then the ability of manufacturers to charge above the manufacturing cost approaches zero. Likewise every other "tool", "appliance", "etc." required for modern living. The cost of such should approach the raw materials.

Drexler set this bar in Nanosystems. I cannot find the precise reference currently but I believe it is of the order of $0.50/kg. (for anything). So *any* 1000 kg car should cost us $500. More importantly if the designs are open source and you are willing to wait long enough (a few months to years) you should be able to build one for *free*.

In case you are unaware of it there are several million (or more) species of bio-nanorobots, some of which are perfectly capable of assembling things, some of which disassemble things. Depends on the design. Mostly they have evolved in a setting called Nature through a process of natural evolution. Their minimal gene set is around 400 variables (genes). More commonly it is 1-2000. Changing or improving upon these programs is where we are currently. Designing these from scratch is where we are going. It is a significant but not so far hop from biological systems which assemble limited sets of molecules to designed systems which assemble more general sets of molecules.

A far better vision would be much more expansive than Space X's -- which in my opinion consists of nothing more than building well engineered reusable reliable rockets at affordable prices.

Some guidelines:
1. Never use a rocket for material you can hurl or lift into space (i.e. non-G sensitive "mass").
2. Never use humans when robots can do much of the work (i.e. systems assembly, parts replacement, etc.).
3. Minimize the risks that humans face (keep them out of space as much as possible or well sheltered from the hazards there).
4. Invest only once. Build the factories to use materials from space in space.

You would start with (1) by throwing out the idea of rockets that can lift increasingly larger payloads. Instead you would invest one or more times in building ocean-equatorial based rail/mass guns [7] (to launch fuel, H2O, O2, food, "station"/"factory" subunits using solar power. This would lead to the construction of orbiting sky hooks which could augment the mass guns and/or pick up astronauts from SpaceShip Two type "ferries". Then SpaceTugs pick the astronauts up from the hooks and relocate them to ships under construction in "Dry Dock" (@ L1|L2).

But before one wants to engage in a vision like this one needs to *seriously* have a discussion regarding when molecular nanotechnology, i.e. when can nanofactories build nanorobots, when can nanorobots build nanofactories (allowing exponential expansion either on the Earth or in space). Nanorobots and nanofactories significantly lower the costs of access to space as well as the development of space (because they eliminate the need for biological "human" environments, safety systems, resource supplies, etc.). So one has to face up to the question of whether we want "human" or "nanorobot" development of space (when one path is clearly less expensive and likely to be more efficient), though perhaps less emotionally fulfilling.

Many engineers 'dis molecular nanotechnology, but for people who understand genome biology, that genomes are "software", that enzymes, esp. DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase and the ribosome are "assemblers", and who may have read Drexler's 1981 PNAS paper in which biological systems were cited as existence proofs for molecular nanotechnology, and perhaps who have read Nanosystems as well, the only questions that remain are how and when we could engineer systems of such complexity.

Then the question becomes whether we spend billions of $ on 40-50 y.o. visions (rockets to the moon or Mars) or equivalent or even greater amounts on say a 11-29 y.o vision... [1]. It is clear, at least to me, that the 40-50 y.o. vision provides some great stories, improves our technologies and lets us go where we have never gone before. In contrast the 11-29 y.o. vision frees most individuals on the planet from having to ever work again to survive, may indefinitely extend their lifespans and enables the evolution of humanity from a pre-Kardashev Type I level civilization to a Kardashev Type II level civilization [6].

I know which vision I'd be inclined to vote for.

1. Drexler's PNAS paper was published in 1981 [2]. Engines of Creation (Vsn. 1 was published in 1986) and (Vsn 2.0 published in 2007) [3]. Nanosystems (Eric's MIT PhD thesis) was published in 1992 [4]. Nanomedicine Vol. 1 by Robert Freitas was published in 1999 [5]. Almost all other nanotechnology "literature" tends to be long on either speculation or technical details and short on "vision" and facts. Those are the references for "science "visifact"ion.

2. http://www.pnas.org/content/78/9/5275.abstract
3. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Engines-of-Creation/Eric-Drexler/e/9780385199735
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engines_of_Creation
      http://www.wowio.com/users/product.asp?BookId=503
4. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Nanosystems-P/Drexler/e/9780471575184
5. http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI.htm
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_civilization
7. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/cannon-shooting-supplies-space

Naw... Musk was born in 1971, assuming retirement @ 65 (though he could be retired now) that puts it at year 2036 -- 26 years from now. I would give you very good odds on the realization of full Drexlerian molecular nanotechnology within 26 years. If so, there is a non-zero probability that some post-Internet (i.e. nanotech boom era) entrepreneur will have launched a small rocket of nanobots to Mars with the express purpose of dismantling it for construction of the Mars-orbit layer of the Solar System Matrioshka Brain. Elon should be saying "bye-bye" to his retirement home unless he plans on a much earlier retirement.

Vision is knowing what is *really* possible but everyone thinks is impossible and achieving it. Space X and some of its dreams are only relevant if you believe that real molecular nanotechnology is a pipe dream. If you cannot make that assertion then you have to get into long discussions as to whether the pursuit of some "visions" are really indulging the childhood dreams of particular individuals rather than advancing humanity as a whole.

We knew how to go to the moon and Mars 40+ years ago (if one threw enough money at it). The only thing Space X is bringing to the table is a bunch of engineers who know how to run calculations with spreadsheets rather than slide rulers and a fair number of MBAs who understand principles of engineering successful businesses. Vision? I'm rather dubious.

There are ~150 proteins in the human genome that operate through ~5 processes (some overlap) to maintain and repair DNA damage. DNA damage from many carcinogens would modify individual bases which are maintained through Base Excision repair or Mismatch Repair [2]. Radiation on the other hand (at least the ionizing kind -- X-rays and Gamma-rays) produces free radicals in the cells and can induce single strand and double strand breaks in the DNA backbone. DNA double strand breaks are potentially the most harmful as they must be repaired and in non-dividing cells the probable repair process is the Non-Homologous-End-Joining (NHEJ) which involves the WRN and DCLRE1C proteins which have exonuclease activities which can delete DNA bases from the DNA strands. These in turn introduce microdeletions (or in some cases microinsertions) which can corrupt gene sequences producing downstream problems (unfolded proteins, malfunctioning proteins, diminished protein production, cell death, etc.).

The photolyase enzyme which is involved in repairing thymine dimers (produced by UV radiation) is much simpler than most of the other DNA repair mechanisms. All known organisms with the possible exception of Deinococcus radiodurans and its close relatives repair DNA double strand breaks using similar, potentially genome corrupting, processes because not repairing such breaks is much worse than repairing them and potentially corrupting a small portion of the genome. The problem is that the accumulation of such botched repair processes likely plays a major role in aging. (Think of your body as an running instance of Microsoft Word and cosmic rays are going through your RAM flipping bits in memory. One hour the print function stops working, next hour the copy function stops working, next hour the dictionary lookup stops working, etc. [1] eventually it gets to the point where nothing works and you have to reload it. Bodies are currently not reloadable).

1. We are assuming here that the bit-flipping isn't introducing segmentation violations, etc. Bodies tend to be fairly error tolerant due to the cellular redundancy but the faulty fixups do accumulate over time.
2. All of the DNA repair process have greater or lesser degrees of reliability. Base excision repair is likely to work most of the time. Mismatch repair can be much more a roll of the dice.