<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Christine Peterson on current state and future potential of nanotechnology</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900</link>
	<description>examining transformative technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nerd</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1114125</link>
		<dc:creator>Nerd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:35:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1114125</guid>
		<description>Thanks to nanotechnology we have microchips, flash memory and CPUs smaller than finger nail. I&#039;m writing this comment using smartphone, 100 times more powerfull than my first desktop computer back in 90s. So, it&#039;s actually going on right now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks to nanotechnology we have microchips, flash memory and CPUs smaller than finger nail. I&#8217;m writing this comment using smartphone, 100 times more powerfull than my first desktop computer back in 90s. So, it&#8217;s actually going on right now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Judith Light Feather</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1107454</link>
		<dc:creator>Judith Light Feather</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:55:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1107454</guid>
		<description>Take a look at the project created by Peter Pesti at Georgia Tech College of Computing.  This is the initial release of the &quot;Detailed Roadmap of the 21st Century&quot; compilation, a year by year bullet point list of notable advances expected to happen in the 21st century, from 2006 onwards.  Karsten Staack made the following video using his selection of the predictions from the research:
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~pesti/roadmap/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Take a look at the project created by Peter Pesti at Georgia Tech College of Computing.  This is the initial release of the &#8220;Detailed Roadmap of the 21st Century&#8221; compilation, a year by year bullet point list of notable advances expected to happen in the 21st century, from 2006 onwards.  Karsten Staack made the following video using his selection of the predictions from the research:<br />
<a href="http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~pesti/roadmap/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~pesti/roadmap/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce Hamilton</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1107246</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce Hamilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:56:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1107246</guid>
		<description>Today we have systems in widespread production doing face recognition, handwriting recognition, voice recognition, and speech synthesis, which would have been considered difficult AI research projects forty years ago. And household robotics are coming on fast... Who cares if we have &quot;real&quot; AI, if it passes a Turing test, etc. &quot;Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from ...&quot; AI?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today we have systems in widespread production doing face recognition, handwriting recognition, voice recognition, and speech synthesis, which would have been considered difficult AI research projects forty years ago. And household robotics are coming on fast&#8230; Who cares if we have &#8220;real&#8221; AI, if it passes a Turing test, etc. &#8220;Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from &#8230;&#8221; AI?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Gentile</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1104242</link>
		<dc:creator>James Gentile</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2011 23:32:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1104242</guid>
		<description>Mark Plus has fallen for the common fallacy of &quot;if it&#039;s not available in walmart right this second it&#039;s impossible.&quot;  There is no reason to believe and you have given no further evidence of (including your silly and pointless &quot;look at the year of next month&#039;s calendar&quot;) these things not happening and perhaps soon. My theory is that A.I. will solve all of these problems, and we will have A.I. shortly after we have supercomputers capable of matching the human brain in computations per second, which will be in the next year or so.  Personally I think 2012 and 2013 are going to be real exciting regarding these and other technologies, so fasten your seat belt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark Plus has fallen for the common fallacy of &#8220;if it&#8217;s not available in walmart right this second it&#8217;s impossible.&#8221;  There is no reason to believe and you have given no further evidence of (including your silly and pointless &#8220;look at the year of next month&#8217;s calendar&#8221;) these things not happening and perhaps soon. My theory is that A.I. will solve all of these problems, and we will have A.I. shortly after we have supercomputers capable of matching the human brain in computations per second, which will be in the next year or so.  Personally I think 2012 and 2013 are going to be real exciting regarding these and other technologies, so fasten your seat belt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PacRim Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103781</link>
		<dc:creator>PacRim Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:51:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103781</guid>
		<description>Want to participate in space exploration?
Learn Mandarin or stop voting for spend-and-tax Democrats.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Want to participate in space exploration?<br />
Learn Mandarin or stop voting for spend-and-tax Democrats.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: M. Report</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103726</link>
		<dc:creator>M. Report</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:52:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103726</guid>
		<description>We do not see the predicted advances because the TPTB do everything in their power to keep
us &#039;stagnating&#039; in the status quo, _with_them_in_charge_; Their failures are our progress.
They believe in the pyramid theory of power; Once one gets to the top, overturning the pyramid
is guaranteed to put those on top back on the bottom.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We do not see the predicted advances because the TPTB do everything in their power to keep<br />
us &#8216;stagnating&#8217; in the status quo, _with_them_in_charge_; Their failures are our progress.<br />
They believe in the pyramid theory of power; Once one gets to the top, overturning the pyramid<br />
is guaranteed to put those on top back on the bottom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Instapundit &#187; Blog Archive &#187; CHRIS PETERSON ON the current state and future potential of nanotechnology&#8230;.</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103715</link>
		<dc:creator>Instapundit &#187; Blog Archive &#187; CHRIS PETERSON ON the current state and future potential of nanotechnology&#8230;.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:02:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103715</guid>
		<description>[...] CHRIS PETERSON ON the current state and future potential of nanotechnology. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] CHRIS PETERSON ON the current state and future potential of nanotechnology. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: flashgordon</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103617</link>
		<dc:creator>flashgordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:29:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103617</guid>
		<description>http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-year-old-puzzle-superstring-theory-supercomputer.html

This is just the latest decades old problem solved.   You might remember Fermat&#039;s Last Theorem and the Poincaire Conjecture in mathematics that took hundreds of years.  I recall some other number theory diophantine analyses only solved recently(a couple of years ago).  That problem I recall went back to Arab Spain days.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-year-old-puzzle-superstring-theory-supercomputer.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-year-old-puzzle-superstring-theory-supercomputer.html</a></p>
<p>This is just the latest decades old problem solved.   You might remember Fermat&#8217;s Last Theorem and the Poincaire Conjecture in mathematics that took hundreds of years.  I recall some other number theory diophantine analyses only solved recently(a couple of years ago).  That problem I recall went back to Arab Spain days.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: flashgordon</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103610</link>
		<dc:creator>flashgordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:25:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103610</guid>
		<description>Hello Mark Plus,

The fact that we don&#039;t have true a.i.(we have some a.i.; just not r2/d2 or anything like that . . . yet) or Drexlerian nanotech is different than what your imagining.  For hundreds of years from the late middle ages(after the Arab spain translations of Classical Greek learning was spread around Europe before what&#039;s conventionaly considered the Renaissance period) up to the 1800s, people tried to make perpetual motion machines.  Eventually, thermodynamics disproved perpetual motion machines. The fact that we don&#039;t have a.i. and nanotech is different.  We know there&#039;s something called intelligence; we just don&#039;t have a good definition of it yet.  We&#039;re doing nanotech right now, and as I&#039;ve remarked already, we&#039;ve been doing nanotech since the early 1800s scientifically.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Mark Plus,</p>
<p>The fact that we don&#8217;t have true a.i.(we have some a.i.; just not r2/d2 or anything like that . . . yet) or Drexlerian nanotech is different than what your imagining.  For hundreds of years from the late middle ages(after the Arab spain translations of Classical Greek learning was spread around Europe before what&#8217;s conventionaly considered the Renaissance period) up to the 1800s, people tried to make perpetual motion machines.  Eventually, thermodynamics disproved perpetual motion machines. The fact that we don&#8217;t have a.i. and nanotech is different.  We know there&#8217;s something called intelligence; we just don&#8217;t have a good definition of it yet.  We&#8217;re doing nanotech right now, and as I&#8217;ve remarked already, we&#8217;ve been doing nanotech since the early 1800s scientifically.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Plus</title>
		<link>http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103581</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Plus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:31:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4900#comment-1103581</guid>
		<description>If an alleged technological breakthrough you want to see always seems to lie about 20 years in the future, no matter how many decades have elapsed, then most likely you&#039;ve wasted your time chasing after a mirage. The Stagnationists like Tyler Cowen, Peter Thiel and Neal Stephenson have a defensible point of view about the nonarrival of the sort of future we thought we would have in 2012.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If an alleged technological breakthrough you want to see always seems to lie about 20 years in the future, no matter how many decades have elapsed, then most likely you&#8217;ve wasted your time chasing after a mirage. The Stagnationists like Tyler Cowen, Peter Thiel and Neal Stephenson have a defensible point of view about the nonarrival of the sort of future we thought we would have in 2012.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>