Comments on: Visionary Congressional report on nanotechnology http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Phillip Huggan http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-213189 Phillip Huggan Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:52:03 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-213189 The mainstream public needs to know about the Singlarity/near-Singularity if it is to happen this Century. Not so much if it winds up being a post-21st Century phenomenom. From the MNT angle I've encountered more technically sound communications/readings with/from mainstream surface scientists than with "the enlightened few" futurists. These scientists are immune to the circular reasoning of mature diamond tools building mature diamond products. Computer modelling will advance at some point to level where it can aid in prototyping MNT-tools rather than MNT-products...but not for quite some time. There may be a nearer-term "Singularity" of consumer junk, aided by MNT-less nanotech advances. Consumer products typically require less extreme tolerances than those for industrial or research applications. For those expecting the Singularity to grant them extreme longevity advances, it would make better sense to vote for parties holding progressive stem cell research, immigration, and "non-bankruptcy" policies. I know, not welcome advice at it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this accurate and correct statement that happens to be political, is moderated. I've yet to see any nano-organizations help their own progressive cause by disawoving Republicanism. The mainstream public needs to know about the Singlarity/near-Singularity if it is to happen this Century. Not so much if it winds up being a post-21st Century phenomenom.

From the MNT angle I’ve encountered more technically sound communications/readings with/from mainstream surface scientists than with “the enlightened few” futurists. These scientists are immune to the circular reasoning of mature diamond tools building mature diamond products.
Computer modelling will advance at some point to level where it can aid in prototyping MNT-tools rather than MNT-products…but not for quite some time.
There may be a nearer-term “Singularity” of consumer junk, aided by MNT-less nanotech advances. Consumer products typically require less extreme tolerances than those for industrial or research applications.
For those expecting the Singularity to grant them extreme longevity advances, it would make better sense to vote for parties holding progressive stem cell research, immigration, and “non-bankruptcy” policies. I know, not welcome advice at it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if this accurate and correct statement that happens to be political, is moderated.
I’ve yet to see any nano-organizations help their own progressive cause by disawoving Republicanism.

]]> By: John DeCicco http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-208227 John DeCicco Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:20:41 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-208227 It is nice to see. A journey of a thousand miles... -John It is nice to see. A journey of a thousand miles…

-John

]]> By: Battleshield http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-197834 Battleshield Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:58:47 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-197834 It's nice to see formal government acknowledging the coming events (Singularity or near Singularity). I wonder if documents like this will further push Futurist discussions out from the realm of the enlightened few and into the mainstream public consciousness..... It’s nice to see formal government acknowledging the coming events (Singularity or near Singularity). I wonder if documents like this will further push Futurist discussions out from the realm of the enlightened few and into the mainstream public consciousness…..

]]> By: Patrick McCray http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-194295 Patrick McCray Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:52:14 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-194295 If the version I looked at was correct, the report identifies a nanometer as one-millionith of a meter. This dosen't bode well... If the version I looked at was correct, the report identifies a nanometer as one-millionith of a meter. This dosen’t bode well…

]]> By: Christine Peterson http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-192538 Christine Peterson Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:43:55 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-192538 Kurt -- I meant to mention that the timeframes shown for the different development stages, which I think the report took from Mihail Roco of NSF, are his timeframes for research, not commercial products. —Christine Kurt — I meant to mention that the timeframes shown for the different development stages, which I think the report took from Mihail Roco of NSF, are his timeframes for research, not commercial products. —Christine

]]> By: Kurt9 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-192406 Kurt9 Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:25:07 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2452#comment-192406 I think the development road map is optimistic. it projects that we go from where we are now to complete nano-sytems by 2020, a meer 13 years. I think this unlikely. What is expected in 2020 is more likely for 2030 or 2040. A 30 year development period seems much more plausible. I think the development road map is optimistic. it projects that we go from where we are now to complete nano-sytems by 2020, a meer 13 years. I think this unlikely. What is expected in 2020 is more likely for 2030 or 2040. A 30 year development period seems much more plausible.

]]>