Comments on: MIT’s Gershenfeld: Desktop molecular machines within 20 years http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1973 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Daniel hazelton Waters http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1973#comment-7199 Daniel hazelton Waters Mon, 07 Nov 2005 01:08:32 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1973#comment-7199 Mark my words Nanotech takes off around the very moment quantum computers do. I expect quantum computing to start taking off in 2007 - 2013. This is much sooner then mainstream science predicts but... Quantum Computing will occur at an even faster rate then moores law actually it will be an order of magnatude higher. Mark my words

Nanotech takes off around the very moment quantum computers do.

I expect quantum computing to start taking off in 2007 – 2013.

This is much sooner then mainstream science predicts but…

Quantum Computing will occur at an even faster rate then moores law actually it will be an order of magnatude higher.

]]> By: Will Ware http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1973#comment-5397 Will Ware Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:37:26 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1973#comment-5397 It's too bad the cited story requires a subscription, many people (like myself) won't want to subscribe just to hear about this. But there is other stuff about Gershenfeld's effort. One is his "FAB" book (ISBN 0465027458, check amazon.com or bn.com). Amusingly, the reviews on Amazon are very polarized; people mostly either love the book or hate it. What's really interesting is to read an Indian newspaper story about the third fab lab in India: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=67263 Articles tend to paint Gershenfeld's idea as utopian or impractical or controversial. There's no new science or technology here. Even the sociology isn't very new. It's great that he's doing it, but anybody sufficiently imaginative and well-funded could have done this fifteen or twenty years ago. So it's too bad that it didn't happen a lot sooner; if it had, we'd be much further ahead with it by now. The fab lab (and later, the personal fabricator) is interesting because it gives us a taste of a world of mature nanotech, without subjecting us to all the possible risks of that world. In the past five or ten years we've seen discussions of intellectual property, piracy, and reverse-engineering enter the intellectual mainstream, and a lot of bright young minds are pondering the social, legal, and technical merits of open-source software. These are good things. It’s too bad the cited story requires a subscription, many people (like myself) won’t want to subscribe just to hear about this. But there is other stuff about Gershenfeld’s effort. One is his “FAB” book (ISBN 0465027458, check amazon.com or bn.com). Amusingly, the reviews on Amazon are very polarized; people mostly either love the book or hate it.

What’s really interesting is to read an Indian newspaper story about the third fab lab in India:
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=67263

Articles tend to paint Gershenfeld’s idea as utopian or impractical or controversial. There’s no new science or technology here. Even the sociology isn’t very new. It’s great that he’s doing it, but anybody sufficiently imaginative and well-funded could have done this fifteen or twenty years ago. So it’s too bad that it didn’t happen a lot sooner; if it had, we’d be much further ahead with it by now.

The fab lab (and later, the personal fabricator) is interesting because it gives us a taste of a world of mature nanotech, without subjecting us to all the possible risks of that world. In the past five or ten years we’ve seen discussions of intellectual property, piracy, and reverse-engineering enter the intellectual mainstream, and a lot of bright young minds are pondering the social, legal, and technical merits of open-source software. These are good things.

]]> By: zn http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1973#comment-5383 zn Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:41:56 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1973#comment-5383 seems like MIT can make something out of nothing , sounds good to me. and lithopgraphy? wouldnt all that pressure squash the atoms? maybe not, who knows. seems like MIT can make something out of nothing , sounds good to me. and lithopgraphy? wouldnt all that pressure squash the atoms? maybe not, who knows.

]]> By: Branden http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1973#comment-5360 Branden Wed, 06 Jul 2005 19:13:26 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1973#comment-5360 This really didn't have much to do with the story... I got this idea to use lithographic type processes to spray atoms into layers to make nanomachines. Thanks, I just had to get that out. This really didn’t have much to do with the story… I got this idea to use lithographic type processes to spray atoms into layers to make nanomachines. Thanks, I just had to get that out.

]]>