101–110 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is now a technology to print DNA from a computer data file and inject it into a cell. That seems to be a good start for tinkering.
Realize that a plasmid (what they are creating and injecting) is usually a loop of ~4000 base pairs while your DNA consists of ~3 billion base pairs. That's not much shell code, especially when we haven't found a shell to run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is now a technology to print DNA from a computer data file and inject it into a cell. That seems to be a good start for tinkering.
Realize that a plasmid (what they are creating and injecting) is usually a loop of ~4000 base pairs while your DNA consists of ~3 billion base pairs. That's not much shell code, especially when we haven't found a shell to run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Evolution took billions of years to engineer the ribosome I see this argument a lot, but it doesn't really hold water. Evolution wasn't trying to engineer the ribosome. In fact, the only thing evolution tries to do is replicate. The biological forms that have come out of that are completely random. Humans, on the other hand, consciously make efforts at engineering. Thousands of monkeys will never (for all practical…
I like this perspective, I prefer optimism over critical pessimism. This stance is really what drives innovation - not being restrained by perceived or even real limitations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution took billions of years to engineer the ribosome (and more importantly to engineer the whole supporting ecosystem where ribosome can do what it needs to do). I doubt humans will be able to do that in next 100 years. Granted a similar argument can be made for many other comparisons (such as camera or airplanes) but at nano-scales physics of environment plays a tremendous role. The beauty of evolution was that…
In the billions of years since life began, evolution never took a life form, put it on the moon, and brought it back. I doubt mankind can do it "before this decade is out". Practical nanotech will inevitably harness the forces of life that already exist; why wouldn't it? Saying it's not real Drexlerian nanotech may be true, but it will also be a very uninteresting thing to say. Who cares? What's happening and what's…
Is this guy actually talking about _Nanosystems_? I don't think he read the same book I did. I want my 60 seconds back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why summarize and criticize a book published in 1986?
Not that I necessarily agree with this particular summary in everything, but the point of summarizing something it to make it easier to digest the core of the argument before criticizing it. For that to work you have to have a really good understanding of the subject matter though, and I think he does Drexler great disservice when he says "He seems to lack the imagination, and of course, the physics to figure out wha…
Well then I fail to see how anyone can justify calling this a technology then, when there ain't even any physics to describe it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I necessarily agree with this particular summary in everything, but the point of summarizing something it to make it easier to digest the core of the argument before criticizing it. For that to work you have to have a really good understanding of the subject matter though, and I think he does Drexler great disservice when he says "He seems to lack the imagination, and of course, the physics to figure out wha…
i understand what summary is for. what i don't "understand" is why he chose as the target a book that's 24 years old in a fast moving field. actually i do understand: it was a strawman! i agree with your assessment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this perspective, I prefer optimism over critical pessimism. This stance is really what drives innovation - not being restrained by perceived or even real limitations.
Real limitations will always restrain you, no matter how optimistic you are.
Many etiological examples can be drawn, but can you not agree that saying "real limitations will always restrain you" is too absolutist?
But the author here overstates his case quite a bit. "Millitech"? There are many microscale mechanical systems out there, both in the lab and in industrial applications. Accelerometers are one example; the actuated mirrors in DLP projectors are another. If there's no microtechnology out there, I know a lot of MEMS engineers who are going to be surprised to here it.
A lot of what's called nanotech now could have been called physical chemistry thirty years ago, especially a lot of the "let's put nanoparticles in it!" projects out there. But there's some pretty real nanotech out there too, even if it doesn't qualify under the self-replicating nanobots definition. One example I can think of is the work being done on nanoscale printing--not lithography, but actual physical printing of materials into nanoscale patterns. And there's some pretty cool controlled nanoparticle engineering work out there too.
Is this guy actually talking about _Nanosystems_? I don't think he read the same book I did. I want my 60 seconds back.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/27999
But I also want my (120) seconds back.