Sandia Labs Venture Into Nanotechnology 107
Saige writes "Sandia National Laboratories and other US Dept. of Energy labs are taking up research into nanotechnology. They've issued a press release which mentions this and gives a simple overview of what nanotech is and may become. There are also a number of interesting links at the bottom to news releases about things such as self-assembled nanospheres, quantum transistors, and protonic computer memory. "
Re:The main thing that bugs me... (Score:1)
Ha! The Dirty Pair foresaw this... (Score:2)
Re:"Designer Materials" (Score:1)
Esperandi
Re:Nano Technology not covered by Geneva Conventio (Score:1)
This *will* be a problem someday.
On the Contrary.... (Score:1)
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going."
Nanotech and Space Travel. . . (Score:2)
Instead, think about using nanotech to drop the cost of making existing fuels, and providing low-cost, high-strength space probes and manned vehicles.
Think solar-powered seawater cracking plants that deliver LOX and LH (two perfectly good fuels with an energetic combustion and a harmless exhaust: water. . .), and include a sufficiently powerful mass-driver or laser-launch facility to loft large quantities of fuels into orbit.
Maybe even Von Neumann devices to mine the asteroids and send back both raw materials AND finished products . . .
Re:Be wary... (Score:1)
yes it did, but you have to remember that while so many thousands of people are checking their hotmail every day we still haven't seen a global thermonuclear war. nano-swat teams infiltrating people's brains and destroying certain parts seems less likely to me than atomic bombs dropping, so i consider it worth the risk to continue developing this technology... and other technologies, too. who knows what the next computer will be...?
On the Contrary.... (Score:1)
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going."
Re:Not just banned in war... (Score:2)
Any activist who feels threatened by Sandia has severe delusions of grandeur. Sandia's primary mission is thermonuclear weapons, not crowd control.
Bubble Bursting (Score:1)
However there is a fundamental problem that no researches seem to address or admit to. The simple problem with nano tech is that our mechanical engineering isn't there yet. Im not referring to our ability to create small things, im referring to our ability to design systems that do interesting things by themselves.
ie. its almost ubiquitiously assumed that nano tech devices can replicate themselves or build other nano tech devices.
really? have you ever seen a macro device that even comes close to doing this? ever see a robot that could build a copy of itself from basic parts? ever see a robot that could do anything really useful and complicated without constant supervision?
about as good an example as i can think of is an auto factory robot, but there is no factory in the world where robots can build a whole car, actually they can't even get close.
recently I think IBM was trying to build a nano tech device that had little 'fingers' that would move pieces around. thats great, now we have tiny little fingers that someday can move other tiny things in 2d. this type of device is easy to build in the macro world, and almost immediately you notice is it almost totally useless for building anything.
If engineers can't even make complicated replicating systmes in the macro world, how can they hope to make something usefull in the micro one.
Re:Nano Technology not covered by Geneva Conventio (Score:1)
Nail your colours to the mast (Score:1)
Investment Opportunities? (Score:1)
Re:Be wary... (Score:1)
Is this paranoid? No, just the way it works.
Re:"Designer Materials" (Score:2)
I think he sounds pretentious. "Designer materials"? Who does he think he is, Timmy Milfinger? A buzzword is a buzzword, whether you use one that already exists or one that you make up yourself.
Yeah, "nanotech" is struggling with a bogosity factor, piled onto it by clumsy journalists and clueless geekboys who've learned everything they know about nanotech from Star Trek. What would make "designer materials" immune to that? Nothing.
Re:nanotech (Score:2)
At present, with comparably primitive equipment, the abuses are endless. Even if we were to do away with the weak societal construct that makes morally reprochable monitoring popular, what happens when we up the ante of power and control to that offered by nanotech devices?
As is, only a small fragment of the population would invade someones privacy, through a balance of risk/gain. Today's devices are easily caught, so in most cases the risk outweighs the benefit. But tomorrow's nano-devices don't have the same risk. They're virtually undetectable. Even if the practice were punishable by death, many prople would still illegally/immorally monitor others because the risk/gain ratio approaches zero.
'Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutly.'
A note to the scoffers... (Score:4)
A lot of people are weighing in here with variations on "Sure nanotech sounds great, but it won't really give us immortality or most of the other things Drexler says it will." I would say that anyone who takes this position doesn't really understand the implications of this kind of technology...
First off, the only other micro-and-smaller-scale technology we know of is micro-chips. Historically this technology has not only proven its ability to exceed initial expectations, but has also had innumerable side effects on other technologies. As a result of cheaper and faster computers and other chip based electronics, we are expanding our knowledge of other disciplines at a faster clip. Nanotech almost certainly holds the same promise for cross-tech synergy.
Secondly, everyone who I have ever spoken to on this subject that had the appropriate expertise tended to be more optimistic in private than they were in writing (if that is possible). When pressed for a timeframe for a true Universal Assembler the usual reply is "No less than 2060, probably by 2040, won't be surprised if by 2020."
Now there have been plenty of technologies that didn't work out anywhere near as well as originally predicted (for example I am still waiting for the Rocket Pack and the Moon Vacation I was promised in 1970 would be mine by 2000). But those technologies have tended to be large and high in energy costs. Not so for Nanotech. Plus it has the advantage of each advance making the next level of advancement easier to achieve! Also like chip techonology if you think about it...
My take? Expect it sooner rather than later. And expect the bad things to happen as well. As opposed to the Scoffers among us, the Doomsayers actually have a point. But there is no stopping it. The next half century is going to be one hell of a ride!
Jack
Re:whoo (Score:1)
yeah... that was pretty stupid
so what if some people thing its neat to get first post... does it actually affect you!?
answer: no
so bug off psycho
Re:Nano Technology not covered by Geneva Conventio (Score:2)
It's just plain dumb to try and ban things before they are invented.
a fifth faction (Score:2)
There's (at least) one more group you neglected to mention: The "(insert name of new technology here) will lead inevitably to (select one or more) global tyranny/evil insidious new weapons/unbearable breaches of privacy/environmental catastophe/the end of the world as we know it" faction. These may include a plea to stop this madness while there's still time, or a fatalistic acceptance that it's impossible to stop progress so we're all doomed.
Not to say that these opinions are wrong (or right) - just that they're usually found after any new technology items on Slashdot.
Re:Nano Technology not covered by Geneva Conventio (Score:4)
I don't like the idea of a standard organization reviewing research though, the only way it could be capable of reviewing is if they are the experts in the field already. In that case things will get partisan and impede the technology. Better to at least put the technology in a fast advancement track at first and make sure it has enough momentum to keep going. Individual research areas may need controls, i.e. military applications, but that goes for any technology.
Re:Not just banned in war... (Score:2)
I usually think of it as a euphamism for obiliterating any "threat" to democracy that Congress can agree is a threat. The ruling class is whoever can bribe all the relevant politicians, same as in almost any country.
Nanoweapons may first be deployed against progressive activists... This populace also provides ready-made excuses for the right-wing media to spin...
That would be a waste of technology. The police do a perfectly fine job with tear gas and riot gear. Are we a bit paranoid, perhaps? The most likely test targets are "terrorists". For those outside... uh... Earth, those are any people who believe in promoting change through liberal use of high explosives, assasinations, and holding/killing hostages.
As to the media, left wing media is almost as prolific as right wing media. Unfortunately, the most prominent examples of NATIONAL left wing media are tabloids. They are err... not too plausible for many people. On the whole, the media reflects the public. In a very liberal city, the media lynches conservative individuals the same way the media in a conservative city lynches liberals. (The net has the best balance of conservative vs. liberal I have seen thus far.) I imagine that the exception would be that everything in the US is right-wing to a socialist, because of the rather capitalistic society. Along those lines, I've hardly met any actual Socialists in the US. (I am not counting the pseudo-socialists who like the idea because they could then slack off and do nothing while still getting paid.) ((I am making an assumption based on the presence of "marx" in your handle.))
There ought to be a ban on any sort of use of nanotechnology of any kind in or on a non-consenting human. Anything less is wide open to abuse by disrespectful governments, of which there are plenty.
Anyone who is going to do the things you are suggesting would ignore the ban anyway. A ban would be nice, but it is not going to factor into the scenario you are illustrating. People inclined to abuse power will do it whether you tell them it is wrong or not.
B. Elgin
Yay Sandia Labs (Score:4)
Hell, any activist who feels threatened by Sandia is welcome to come down to the Kirtland Air Force Base gates and tell them so. I've been working at Sandia the past couple summers, and there's been at least one underwhelming protest by people with more good intentions than good sense.
I remember in particular one sign to the effect of "do you feel good about your job?" I was tempted to stop, tell the person yes, and ask him what in his life has been as worthwhile as the GPS satellites and nuclear test ban monitoring satellites that my department was involved in.
But, hey, don't rule out crowd control entirely. Wasn't it Sandia or Los Alamos behind those "goop guns" that would spray sticky foam over a target and nonharmfully stop him in his tracks?
OK, glib, pointless comment: (Score:2)
Design a combat strategy game ala Warcraft/Starcraft where you control an army of lemming-like nanites who have to make more of themselves in order to beat the nasty little virii. Unfortunately, the virii don't care if they kill the host for raw materials, and you "theoretically" do care.
It might even raise interest in medicine amongst a younger generation of... well... us. The question is, what will the little buggers say when you click on them 20-30 times, and how will we make this violent enough to be fun instead of educational?
B. Elgin
Re:Not so new... (Score:2)
This sounds very Rube-Goldberg-ian - how would they prevent somebody from bypassing this device?
Strap yourselves in... (Score:3)
I'm studying for a metallurgy and materials engineering degree now, and I'm seeing even more possibilities and opportunities and possibilities than I did way back when.
I've also seen a number of "but itcould be used as a weapon" type posts here; so what? Throughout human history, every technology has been used as a weapon. In The Axemaker's Gift, James Burke (Connections) and Robert Ornstein argue that every invention since the stone knife has had the potential of being used to make people's lives better or worse; nontech is no different and, given the materialistic culture that surrounds Sandia (i.e. the U.S.), chances are pretty good that pumping out weapons will be a low priority compared to things that can make them some quick cash. Never underestimate the power of human greed...
RE-inflating the Burst Bubble. . . (Score:1)
Endothermic Reactions (Score:1)
An endothermic reaction can certainly occur without external energy input--those instant cold packs you sometimes find in first aid kits are a good example. They use a chemical (often ammonium nitrate) that adsorbs heat as it dissolves in water.
The catch is that the reaction is driven by an increase in randomness--so you might be able to take apart the patient, but not put him back together :). For more info, try this page on Gibbs Free Energy [vt.edu] that describes the relationship between enthalpy and entropy.
Re:Ironically, the greatest benefits are overlooke (Score:1)
A) (Friction is bad) Unfortunately, your vision of frictionless machines is completely unfounded. TANSTAAFL.
In fact, at small scales van der Waals forces contribute proportionally gigantic static (as opposed to kinetic) frictional resistance that will take a fair amount of energy to overcome.
B) (Friction is good) Without friction (of some sort), how would our friendly neighborhood nanites be able to manipulate anythig for us? Please think about it before thinking frictionless anything would be a good thing.
End of Rant.
Re:Ironically, the greatest benefits are overlooke (Score:1)
Admittedly, My post contained a few innaccuracies (not to mention a dismal lack of HTML - Ack!). However, even you admit that the "friction" that exists at the microscopic level is really an entirely different set of forces.
Also, I think the studies you did were at the micro level, not the nano level. At the micro level, normal friction rules seem to apply (not to mention heat generation, as our frustrated friends at Intel keep discovering).
Re:Be wary... (Score:1)
Re:Ironically, the greatest benefits are overlooke (Score:1)
Admittedly, My post contained a few innaccuracies (not to mention a dismal lack of HTML - Ack!). However, even you admit that the "friction" that exists at the microscopic level is really an entirely different set of forces.
Also, I think the studies you did were at the micro level, not the nano level. At the micro level, normal friction rules seem to apply (not to mention heat generation, as our frustrated friends at Intel keep discovering).
Re:Endothermic Reactions (Score:1)
Re:Bubble Bursting (Score:2)
There is no reason why this couldn't be built, assuming that the robot was designed in a more modular fashion. It just really doesn't serve that much of a purpose.
The big difference between nanomachines and macro machines is the components they're made out of. Machines today use all sorts of different parts, from chips to wires to metal plates. Nanomachines will, in some ways, be the equivalent of legos when compared. Because the atoms these machines are designed to manipulate are also the basic components of the machines themselves.
If we found a way to engineer all of today's machinery out of a set of "building blocks", it would be easy to imagine machines that can be programmed to put them together into any formation. A gear block here, a chip block here, a motor block here - but that would add a lot of time, engineering, and material overhead that isn't really considered necessary.
ever see a robot that could do anything really useful and complicated without constant supervision?
Last I was aware, there were come plants using robots that had a minimal number of people working during the day, and NONE at night. Working unsupervised.
---
Re:Nanotech is not free energy - thermodynamics!! (Score:1)
Equilibrium thermodynamics refers to closed systems. Nonequilibrium thermodynamics refers to open systems. Entropy still increases, though.
There's a lot of evidence mounting from physics research that the laws of thermodynamics, like newtonian gravity to relativity, are a special case of more gerneal rules.
Whether Statistical Mechanics (theoretical big brother to thermodynamics) will swallow Quantum Mechanics or vice verca is currently a hot topic to those willing to be heretical enough to discuss it. I recommend checking out the Center for Nonlinear Dynamics at UT Austin. http://chaos.ph.utexas.edu/
Tiny Things (Score:2)
Hmmm..... (Score:1)
Hope and reality (Score:3)
Still, the possibilities for nano are great indeed. Immensely strong materials that are incredibly lightweight; molecular-level perfect reconstruction of physical injuries; individually repairing aged cells so that they are young again, allowing effective immortality; exponential improvements in computer technology; and just about anything else you can think of.
Of course this is all tempered by the fact that nano will also be used for harm, and evil, just as any other technology has; and the potential for tragedy is also great. Some mad scientist could invent a self-replicating, airborne nanobot that will spread over the entire planet and kill every living cell it finds. I certainly hope that this doesn't happen, but it is a possibility.
More information... (Score:4)
Old news, repackaged (Score:4)
The press release is just Sandia's way of trying to pre-position themselves for a share of the research funding that Clinton has proposed.
(Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that. They do have a base of knowledge and experience to build on, and they do need to make the effort to get a chunk of the funding. But the press release really isn't really saying anything other than "Yeah, we want a piece of that!")
small? (Score:1)
We Don't Get Fooled Again ... (Score:2)
Same as the old Labs
Sitting in the Silicon Sun
And secretly making a gun
The question one needs to be asking is: How much Black Budget is being spent on nanotech? And how will the public budget be subsidizing the Black Budget for basic research?
I'm basing this on memories of my uncle, who worked at Sandia, and the real truth to where our research bucks go. He did solar cells, but most of the budget for that was for Black Budget satellite systems, which had a need to be more covert.
first uses for nano (Score:2)
But realisticly, we'll see many mundane applications of molecular construction before we see great ones.
We'll buy diamond-coated, stickless, scratchless fry pans before we buy diamond optical processors.
The main thing that bugs me... (Score:4)
Just because we have the ability to build things at the atomic scale (which may/may not be plausible) doesn't mean that we get nifty things like immortality (There's a quote [which I can't attribute, unfortunately] in Ian McDonald's _Terminal Cafe_ that goes something like: "The first thing that nanotechnology gives you is immortality" and a response: "No, the first thing that nanotechnology gives you is reincarnation.") and cures for various cancers. Folks, we just don't understand enough about the human body to make this possible.
I think that this is money well spent, and that Nano will give us all sorts of great things... eventually. But not within 30 years, as Drexler keeps saying. It's NOT going to be instantaneous revolution with equalization of global resources and other Wonderful Things(tm), as many people think. In fact, the societies which develop Nano first could basically hold the rest of the world hostage, as in Haldeman's _Forever Peace_. Scary thing, that thought!
Think long term benefits (and problems), instead. One of the areas that I think will be most fascinating will be in material science. But biology is much more complex at this level, and we just don't know enough to monkey around with Nano right away. Probably wont for some time AFTER we get Nano.
Not so new... (Score:4)
It's quite interesting - they have a MEMS system whereby a user must enter a code to unlock the nuclear warhead for use - this code turns a series of microscopic gears/levers that raises a tiny mirror to certain angles. If the code sequence is entered correctly, the mirror is raised to the proper angle that allows a laser beam to reflect off the mirror and hit a sensor that unlocks the weapon. If the code is hit incorrectly at an sequence, the mirror is not at the proper position and the weapon is locked permanently - the only way it can be unlocked is to dismantle the weapon - a process which utilizes very specific and complex tools that only certain people/agencies have access to. I believe that this system has already been employed on US nuclear weapons - thus a foreign government/terrorist force cannot "hack" a nuke and use it.
Another thing is that many researchers in the field are a bit way of the term "nanotechnology" as it is linked with what many consider "pie-in-the-sky" wishful/unrealistic expectations - kind of like AI researchers being shy of calling their research AI due to the sometimes negative connotations with that field from the early 80's (the so-called "AI Winter") when many realized that the unrealistic hubris from earlier times regarding AI was not going to be realized anytime soon and funding was slashed dramatically.
Oh well...this kind of stuff (like that ATP-based propeller powered by Brownian motion -
Respectfully,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@wm.edu
Posting while moderating (Score:1)
Re:a fifth faction (Score:2)
You mean Katz.
Here's a use you might appreciate (Score:2)
Re:whoo (Score:1)
i disagree.... i really find that first post grabbers dont slow down my connection noticeably, nor do i have to read the posts... things like petrified natalie portmans bathing in grits are a lot more of a plague
so for all you first post nay-sayers: deal with it... suck it up
Meaningless words. (Score:3)
- nanotechnology: Either the ability to work with a material at an extremly small level or a self replicating machine.
- hacker: Either a war3z d00d or script kiddie or a person capable of coming up with an elegant solution involving technology.
- government, law, tax, etc.: Either a function of the United States that only applies to the United States, despite the fact that my log indicates that the U.S. is a minority in Slashdot or a vague concept that may or may not apply to any country.
A note on the last item. I've looked at the logs for the three major references to my site. Two of them are Slashdot and one is Toywar. The majority of hits on all three are occurring from-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem. [virtualsurreality.com]
Re:The main thing that bugs me... (Score:1)
what no one generally considers
is all the HEAT these things
will give off doing all that work.
you know, fevers
are caused by all the work
bacteria are doing,
and that's a BAD THING.
(i read an article in SF Age where
scientists broached this topic.)
Ironically, the greatest benefits are overlooked (Score:3)
Re:Not so new... (Score:1)
Re:nanotech (Score:2)
Well, if nanotech devices were used to violate privacy, it would at least be easier to get people to oppose it. If you can walk up to a layman and say "There is a small machine inside your body that is broadcasting your location, emotional state, and libido to your local police" then that layman will probably be pretty upset.
Trying to get non-nerds to get worked up over, say, Echelon, is very difficult because what it going on is so complicated.
That, and people hate the idea of having little things implanted into them.
-sig-
wtf? (Score:1)
You're this paranoid, and then you think a simple ban is going to stop anyone who would do this?
And you think that the first use of a technology that will be incredibly difficult and expensive to develop and produce the first batches of will be against protesters / activists in the US?
You're nuts.
Stupid Joke (Score:1)
A right-wing malitia group takes over a nuclear silo.
"Doh! I hit the wrong code! We need to dismantile this assembly in order to try again!"
"The Marines are at our door, sir, they're gonna use a torch to cut the door."
"Shit, Johnson, this here is some kinda funny bolts. Aww damnit, they're metric! Ahh!"
Re:Meaningless words. (Score:2)
Also, I've found NT 4.0 to be suprisingly popular; I get more NT hits than any other.
Re:Meaningless words. (Score:2)
I find it almost impossible to read Slashdot when it comes to certain words. It seems as if the words are being used in multiple ways and it makes the discussion very confusing.
So? English is like that. Secondly, that's the terminology. Learn it. This comment makes me remember my first grade teacher, and her "conference" with my mother.
Teacher: I wish Jonathan wouldn't use certain words.
Mom: He's swearing?!?
Teacher: Oh no! He uses certain..."big words"; and I'm afraid that the other children don't know what he's talking about.
Mom:There isn't a chance in hell I'm going to tell my son not to use his vocabulary. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard; and you call yourself an "educator"?
(This "educator" also liked to get on me for reading ahead, counting beyond 10, and bringing books from home. A fine example of the public school system. (conform obey never question)
We seem to do fine with "open source" and "gpl" and even know the difference between Linux and Linus, but some words just don't make sense anymore.
Who's "we"? Since you're DEFINATLY not including me in that statment; I'm going to assume "we" means "you".
Of course "open source" != "GPL". One is a concept, the other is a legal document.
Only an idiot confuses "Linux" and "Linus". One is a operating system, the other is a person.
nanotechnology: Either the ability to work with a material at an extremly small level or a self replicating machine.
I have NEVER seen "nanotechnology"
hacker: Either a war3z d00d or script kiddie or a person capable of coming up with an elegant solution involving technology.
What's your point? A "pig" is either a swine or cop. A flame is either a small piece of fire or an Internet message such as this. I suggest you read the Jargon File [tuxedo.org].
government, law, tax, etc.: Either a function of the United States that only applies to the United States, despite the fact that my log indicates that the U.S. is a minority in Slashdot or a vague concept that may or may not apply to any country.
Wait! Wait! Wait! Wait! Wait! What's this about "your log"? You're not one of the Intergalactic Blockstackers. How the hell do have any logs about who accesses slashdot? That makes no sense.
Secondly the US is still the dominate county on the Internet. Sure some other countries are coming up, but they haven't matched us yet. It's definatly the dominate country on
(To avoid any more confusion, "American" means "pertaining to the United States of America". Why? Because we claimed the word first. I'd like to see someone try stop us from using it.
Thrirdly, how is "government", "tax" or "law" vauge concepts? They've existed since the beginning of civilization. And what's that crack about "may or may not apply to any contry"?
-------------
And now for the moderators:
How the hell is this "informative"? There is ZERO information in that post!
Re:a fifth faction (Score:2)
Funny and toll are not mutually exclusive, IMO.
Pleasure was all mine!
Is this news? (Score:1)
Nanotech is not free energy - thermodynamics!! . (Score:2)
Nanotech will be a useful tool, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. All those materials have to break chemical bonds somewhere, and the nanobots need ENERGY. They need energy to move, energy to replicate, energy to break carbon bonds (VERY expensive), energy to form bonds.
Will they be useful? Sure. But they'll need lots of energy, and a lot fo the potential applications that I see mentioned here on /. are forgetting that one of the basic principles of thermodynamics is you can't win. None of these nanobot articles discuss this, unless Sandia labs is using some uberscret alien propoulsion technology as a energy source, they'll have the same problems.
Viruses spread fast because they are simple, they aren't even technically "alive", per se. That's why they spread so fast - very little mass to adjust, and they can use cell machinery to replicate themselves - because they are so simple - quickly.
Just like your cell phone gets low on batteries, so will these nanobots. Look at some numbers! Even solar power is drastically too inefficient.
There's our source of control over the nanotech armies - power. Wireless xmission of power decreases with the square of the distance - another fundamental law.
Kudos..
Be wary... (Score:3)
Nano is where you find it. (Score:2)
Pretty cool. Just like finding bucky tubes in chimney soot.
Remember... (Score:1)
At first progress is slow while basic research is done and understanding of the whole thing grows slowly - almost linearly. Then when a certain critical mass is reached, suddenly the pieces start coming together, interaction with other fields opens up zillions of new insights and applications, and adoption of the technology grows almost exponentially. Finally, either market saturation or some other fundamental limitation starts making its effects felt and the growth tends to become horizontal again.
There've been many "new technology" news items posted on /., and it seems there are 4 main opinion groups - "Yeeha! Where can I buy this?", "Cool, if it were possible, which it ain't", "(yawn) Been there, done that - see URL", and as always the "petrified Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans" contingent (if I got this right :-)). But I'd like to ask people who actually are connected to serious nanotech research to post something about what level in the S-cruve they're really in at this time...
For the paranoid... (Score:3)
Translation: Super materials for next generation war machines.
Nanostructured semiconductor materials created at Sandia may enable highly efficient, low power lasers for high-speed optical communications.
Translation: High efficiency lasers to use for blinding / burning / igniting troops and vehicles on battlefields.
Biosensors that use molecular bundles similar to those found in living cells are being created that could warn people when traces of a chemical or biological warfare agent are detected. .
Translation: Mite-sized robots that detect humans coming near, and releasing nerve-toxins to disable or kill. Friendly troops are protected by an IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) pheromone.
Just a friendly reminder that any advance can be used for good or bad - and that advertised purposes do not necessarily mean the only motivation for researching them. (No offense to the Sandia Lab folks - I'm sure your intentions are pure).
"Designer Materials" (Score:1)
Nano Technology not covered by Geneva Convention (Score:5)
A new international conference needs to be held in order to add these agents to the list of banned weapons of war.
Otherwise we may indeed see contries developing the "grey plague."
Additionally it seems that our technology always seems to get out from under our control through the law of unintended consequences.
We need to have an international safety board to review all research in the area of nano technology and to slow down the release of wild strains of nanobots into the environment. Some will still get out, but at a slower, more manageable rate than otherwise.
Re:The main thing that bugs me... (Score:2)
Conspiracy theory... ? ;) (Score:2)
Ray Kurzweil writes an article [slashdot.org] about nanotech and downloading the human brain....
Sandia Labs gets into the nanotech business at about the same time....
Aha! The Gray aliens have taken over Ray's brain in order to use him to smooth the way for the (alien derived!) nanotech brain-control devices produced at Sandia Labs (a well known front for the Grays amongst Those-In-The-Know). I can just hear 'em warming up the anal probes now, those sneaky bastards..... ;)
-- WhiskeyJack, wondering where his tinfoil hat is when he needs it....
Re:Posting while moderating (Score:1)
Re:a fifth faction (Score:1)
Not just banned in war... (Score:2)
Nanoweapons may first be deployed against progressive activists, since they currently represent the biggest threat to the ruling class and they congregate readily. This populace also provides ready-made excuses for the right-wing media to spin ("a particularly virulent pneumonia", "must have been their lifestyle choices", etc.) Watch out for those water cannons, and remember where you heard it first!
Further advances in storage capacity and reproductive accuracy will enable nanite hit squads, with the ability to target a specific person and affect their life processes in degrees ranging from annoying to torturous to fatal, while remaining mostly quiescent and undetectable in other human carriers.
There ought to be a ban on any sort of use of nanotechnology of any kind in or on a non-consenting human. Anything less is wide open to abuse by disrespectful governments, of which there are plenty.
-jhp
("locusts with heads of men"? Hmm...)
Re:The main thing that bugs me... (Score:1)
So you inject the nanosurgeons into your patient, and
redirect comments about petrification to
Thim Film Solar Cells Real Soon Now. (Score:1)
Big news for ZDNET (Score:1)
Get your new NANOX CAM NOW! Thanks to research from Sandia Labs X10 now provides you with the smallest spy cam ever. These full color cameras are smaller than a and can broadcast up to 3 miles. Buy one today.
Re:A note to the scoffers... (Score:2)
Consider how broad the impact of nanotechnology will be. It will revolutionize the manufacturing of just about everything. It will revolutionize healthcare. It will have a major impact on computers and communications. What other technology is both so revolutionary and so broadly applicable?
No need to search for the "killer" app. If you think Viagra sells well, try immortality. (the killer app is not being killed) How much would you pay for extended youth and health? You can't take it with you, ya know.
Investors are already technology crazy. Look at how much money has been invested in Amazon, Yahoo, etc. I mean, give me a break. Investment in nanotechnology has the potential to be a supernova.
Yeah, it'll happen sooner rather than later...
No interesting (Score:1)
Unless you believe in balkanization and are a bigot that believes the dirt you are born on means a single thing about what you know, believe, or could be right about, knowing where people are coming from is comletely uninteresting...
Esperandi
Re:"Designer Materials" (Score:1)
I learned everything I know about Nanotechnology from the Nanites up on the satellite of love!
Man, I miss MST3K...
nanotech (Score:2)
Let's try resolving our *current* issues before bigger problems come along (or smaller ones...).
Private or Public Companies doing similar research (Score:1)
Positronic memory (Score:1)
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
Re:Hmmm..... (Score:2)
Re:Posting while moderating (Score:1)
Now, if we could just get nanotech moderating, we could just let those nanobots (or threadbots) moderate for us, searching out those first posters and moderating them down, so that we could just use our moderation points to moderate the ACs up.
Wishful thinking, perhaps, but it would be nice.