HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shearson!snark!pmetzger@uunet.uu.net (Perry E. Metzger)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Rere:Snowballing tomk
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:11:28 GMT
Organization: Lehman Brothers

sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us (Darren Senn) writes:
>In article <Aug.26.22.27.43.1992.1276@planchet.rutgers=edu> kr%portal@cup.portal.com writes:

>>... it does seem fairly reasonable to assume that within
>>roughly two decades a well developed nanotechnology will be available

>No, I don't think that's reasonable.  I'd estimate at least a century
>before nanotechnology is mature. ...

You seem to forget another point; even an immature nanotechnology will
likely radically alter our lifespans.

And for those of us who don't like the idea of being caught dying just
a few decades away from nanotechnology, there is always cryonics...

>The first many iterations of the technology will likely use assemblers
>that are large, expensive devices containing chambers with tightly
>controlled environments within which the assembly occurs.  You will
>not be able to use a couple moles of these assemblers on a single
>project.  In fact, a couple moles of these assemblers will never be
>constructed.  Maybe as many as 200, and certainly no more than 10 or
>12 in a large specialized company.

Given the fact that you can construct more assemblers with self
reproduction, why should we be restricted to so few assemblers?

>What about R&D?  This is by far the most expensive part of product
>development.  Do you know how expensive it was to design even simple
>compounds like nylon? ...

Things have changed a lot since Nylon was designed 50 years ago. Now
we have computers to help us with our R&D. We also have several
interesting synergies: faster computers mean faster/better R&D.
Faster/better R&D means faster computers. Crude assemblers allow us to
build yet faster computers and yet better assemblers simulated with
those faster computers. Technologies like this don't advance linearly;
they advance exponentially in early stages. I'd say you are being
radically pessimistic. Although I can see reasonable arguments for
nanotechnology taking another 50 years to develop (I don't agree, but
I can see the arguments), I don't see how once we have nanotechnology
the advances after that won't proceed at an unimaginably fast rate as
the design and production tools we use themselves improve radically,
and continue to improve radically because we can use the tools to
design better tools, and so forth.


--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.

[At least part of the problem here is terminological.  Darren 
 appears to be referring to STM-like proto-assemblers and Perry 
 to the molecular-scale ones with the same word.  In the interest
 of coherent discourse, I suggest using "proto-assembler" to refer
 to macroscopic devices able to controlled molecular construction,
 but not able to replicate themselves, and "assembler" to mean
 the self-reproducing kind given that name by Drexler.
 --JoSH]
From: shearson!snark!pmetzger@uunet.uu.net (Perry E. Metzger)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Evolution and nanotech
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:37:41 GMT
Organization: Lehman Brothers

ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian) writes:
>A question which struck me the first time I heard about nanotechnology:

>	"How do we stop nanomachines from evolving away from their
>	 original purposes ?"

Normal living systems are DESIGNED to easily evolve. The "blueprints",
i.e., the DNA, is very flexible; mutations in DNA are rarely as fatal
to the functioning of a living organism as a single displaced bit is
in the instruction stream of the average computer program. Similarly,
the error correcting mechanisms in living things are fairly poor.
Simply using a good mathematically based error correction code in the
nanomachine's internal program could reduce the "mutation" rate so low
that a mutation event is expected only once every few billion years or
longer, and at fairly low cost; certainly good enough to keep the
things from successfully mutating.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
From: mckendre@sal-sun70.usc.edu (Thomas Mc Kendree)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Multiple Experiences
Date: 29 Aug 92 05:49:27 GMT

In article <Aug.21.18.26.44.1992.20235@planchet.rutgers.edu> hsr4@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Auld Sprurklie) writes:
>Making a great many assumptions...
>What was NMR and is now MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) is a mechanism for
>monitoring the chemical state of part of an organism (this necessarily very
>vague).  If the speed of MRI can be increased considerably to the point where
>it can take a 'snapshot' of the chemical state of an entire brain, frozen in
>action for a moment, and then process that chemical map to yield whatever
>format would be necessary for an artificial brain, and then implement that new
>map in the artificial unit....

I believe that it might be necessary to take many 'snapshots' and actually
make a movie, before you really understood how a brain was structured.

From the standpoint of using MRI, however, there may be a much more important
problem; I believe that the nature of MRI makes it impossible to get resolution
down to the individual neuron, because of the fundamental resolution of the 
magnetic "rays."  Even if that can be addressed (perhaps the wavelength can
be reached, and one could have a giant battery of phased array SQUIBS, or some
such), the way MRI works, it measures brain activity by looking at the 
distribution of an atomically tagged chemical (e.g. inject sugar with a special
isotope.  The cells that are "running hard" at the time draw in the sugar, and
by using the MRI to look at the distribution of the isotope, infer the 
distribution of how neurons drew upon the sugar.)  
The upshot is that every neuron might not have the tagged isotope for any
MRI scan to pick up, and even if they all do, there still is no obvious way
to read out all the synapses.  I would be very interested if anyone can show
a non-invasive technique for reading off all the structure, and hence contents,
of the brain.  (Reading EOC gives one an idea of how this could be done
non-destructively, albeit invasively.)

[I wouldn't want to upload via such a (MRI) technique--much too vague,
 and too much chance of completely missing latent memories one isn't
 thinking about at the time.  But by the same token, it might be a way
 to generate "partials".
 --JoSH]
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Un-Nanotech-able?
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:31:35 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

Some goods we currently manufacture take advantage of the nuclear
features of matter.  Some questions:

What useful features are there?  (Radiation; what else?)

How many products *depend* upon such features (as opposed to it just
being currently easier to make those products using those features)?

How big an industry is this?

What will the impact of nanotech be on this industry?

- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu

[The only significant advantage of nanotech in the nuclear-related
 industries I can think of off hand would be isotopic separation 
 cheap enough to use for waste processing.  I'm sure there are others,
 though.
 --JoSH]
From: bonneau@hyper.uucp (Paul Bonneau)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Delivery Systems
Date: 29 Aug 92 06:42:09 GMT
Organization: HyperCube Inc.

Hi all,

I have been reading this group for some time now, but have
not seen this idea mentioned yet.  If its old hat, please
forgive my ignorance.

Anyway, I have been thinking about the problem of delivering
an atom to the desired site during construction of some nano-
component.  Someone a while ago thought you could stick an
atom on the end of a manipulator arm with a bond, but this
approach has problems.

How do you control breaking the bond to the arm and forming
one with the required component?  How to prevent
hydrogenation of the exposed radical?

My idea is to use tubes of SP2 hybridized carbons, ie.
graphite.  This is like a long Bukcy Ball with no ends.
You could lob ions down the tube by placing a negative charge
at the delivery end.  As long as the bond formed with the
component the ions is being shot at is stronger than the
electrostatic attraction at the delivery end, there should
not be a problem in overcoming the attraction.

Another method would be to fill the tube with atoms, and
just "push" them through.  In fact, if you filled a tube
with metal atoms, they should share outer shell electrons
and you could conduct a current.  Although, come to think
of it, the grahite tubes themselves should conduct (graphite
does) along the length of the tube, since the bonds form a
delocalized PI system.

Also the graphite tube should be very non-reactive, (the
carbons are fully saturated), so there shouldn't be a problem
with interactions of the atoms being transported, as long
as they aren't too reactive.

By controlling the velocity of the atoms being delivered,
one should be able to exert a fine enough degree of control
to get a reasonable probability of the required bond being
formed.

You would have to perform *lots* of quantum mechanical
molecular dynamics simulations to determine the correct
velocities for the combination of target component and
transported atom, but it should be feasible.

BTW, I am not a chemist, just a computer geek, but I am one
of the developer's of HyperChem, albeit at the front end
(GUI).  So I have a kind of sympathy for the chemical
problems, but not any kind of authoritative knowledge.  I
just wanted to throw this idea out for discussion.

cheers - Paul.
From: coganman@soda.berkeley.edu (Andrei Cogan)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Drexler in San Jose 5 Oct
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:10:22 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association


	Eric Drexler will be giving a speech at the Computer Literacy
Bookshop in San Jose in 5 October 1992, entitled "Nanotechnology and the
Future of Computing." The time given is 7-8:30 pm, and this is at the San
Jose store.

	2590 N. 1st St. (at 1st and Trimble)
	San Jose	(408) 435-1118

This will apparently be a free lecture.

	-Andrei

-- 
    Andrei Cogan (coganman@ocf.berkeley.edu)   |||   "When in doubt, panic."
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you think it will take,       |
|   even if you take into account Hofstadter's Law.                           |
From: ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Evolution and nanotech
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:38:33 GMT
Organization: Dept. Biochemistry, University of Bristol


JoSH writes:
>[Rats.  I thought I had a paper by Drexler addressing this subject
> in that directory, and it's not there.  I gave you a bum steer.
> I will send you a copy as soon as I find it.  The "understanding"

You won't be able to mail me at the address I read mail from,
use BADCOE@UK.AC.BRISTOL.BSA
or  BADCOE@EZRZ1.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH

Also, Perry Metzger writes:

>Normal living systems are DESIGNED to easily evolve. The "blueprints",
                           ^^^^^^^^
Nothing in evolution is designed !  You are probably just speaking loosely
but I had to mention it as a lot of people have strange ideas about evolution.

>i.e., the DNA, is very flexible; mutations in DNA are rarely as fatal
>to the functioning of a living organism as a single displaced bit is
>in the instruction stream of the average computer program. Similarly,

I contest that !  Certainly the production of function is a chancy
business but the loss of function . . . imagine the mutation

	ADD H010102,H100023 -> RTS

Where RTS is Return from Subroutine (you knew that).  This instantly
removes the entire second half of the routine, for example, removing
half the proof-reading from the program.

(Obviously nano-computer assembly nimonics won't be like this but the
 point is general.)

>the error correcting mechanisms in living things are fairly poor.
>Simply using a good mathematically based error correction code in the
>nanomachine's internal program could reduce the "mutation" rate so low
>that a mutation event is expected only once every few billion years or

I'd have to see some figures before I accept this.

>longer, and at fairly low cost; certainly good enough to keep the
>things from successfully mutating.

I'll save a proper reply until I've seen the Drexler article that JoSH
mentioned.
From: willdye@helios.unl.edu (Will Dye)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Definitions
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:09:35 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

> ... I suggest using "proto-assembler" to refer
> to macroscopic devices able to controlled molecular construction,
> but not able to replicate themselves, and "assembler" to mean
> the self-reproducing kind given that name by Drexler.
> --JoSH]

This definition is great if the macroscopic "proto-assembler" 
slowly builds the first true assembler, and then the assemblers 
take over from there.  I defer to JoSH, but for what it's worth, 
I thought of the term "proto-assembler" as any device that leads 
to a true assembler.  Such devices could be bulk (STM's, etc.), 
but what about the biotech route to nanotech?  

When a previous thread talked of "crude 
nanotech", I thought of something more akin to advanced biotech 
or chemistry:  many types of extremely complex molecules 
interacting under controlled conditions to produce a marketable 
result (such as industrial enzymes, bio-stuff, or even diamond  
fiber).  Such reactions are far from the self-contained assemblers 
of EoC fame; but perhaps they will lead to them, if only because 
of better funding. :-)

Again, I defer to JoSH on this, but if anyone else has a problem 
with bulk 'proto-assemblers', they may want to chime in.  

So far...

Assembler: Big programmable molecule for molecular manipulation.
Can be programmed to replicate itself.

Replicator: Big non-programmable molecule that self-replicates.

Proto-assembler: Bulk device that can manipulate molecules, but 
can't (within practicality) self-replicate.

Chemistry: Molcules bouncing around reacting with each other. 
Non-programmable, but influenced but manipluating bulk factors
such as temperature and mix. 

Bio-chemistry: Chemistry that focuses on useful molecules & 
structures provided by biological activity.

--Will

[A cogent point.  I looked back in EoC where Eric first introduces
 the term "assembler" on p.14--just before that is a description
 of exactly the biotech path to assemblers you mention. Unfortunately
 there is no name proposed for "these protein machines [which] combine
 the splitting and joining abilities of enzymes with the programmability
 of ribosomes."  My guess is that when somebody actually does build
 such a thing, he will call it an "assembler" and I don't propose
 to argue with him!  Until then we can probably get by with the 
 existing biochemical vocabulary...
 --JoSH]
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:52:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.155542.2972@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>: 
>: You will note that I have never stated that creation is a scientific
>: hypothesis.
>: 
>: Try to remember that "believes in the creation" is not the same as
>: "believes in creation science."
>: 
>
>Fine, then we all agree that there is no place in science texts or
>classes for creation.  Likewise, there is no point in talking about it
>in sci.skeptic.  
>
>Unless you've got a falsifiable hypothesis and some evidence, creation
>is just so much religious twaddle.  I see no reason to take your view
>of the creation of the universe any more seriously that the hindu
>view, the navajo view, or the story invented by my 3 year old niece.

Yeah! Any view that states dogmatic facts about situations for which
there are no living witnesses! - like ...oh..say...the theory of evolution
for example.
>
>--
>Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Concentrate on th'cute,
>Rosemount Inc.                                |li'l CARTOON GUYS!  Remember
>                                              |the SERIAL NUMBERS!!  Follow
>grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |the WHIPPLE AVE EXIT!!  Have
>                                              |a FREE PEPSI!!  Turn LEFT at
>                                              |th'HOLIDAY INN!!  JOIN the
>                                              |CREDIT WORLD!!  MAKE me an
>                                              |OFFER!!!
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:16:32 EST
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug27.184008.13006@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
[...]
> 
> I wasn't meaning to argue this with scientists.  It was an observation
> I was making.  I really didn't expect anyone to respond to it, as it is
> one of those points which says, "The real answer cannot be proven."
This is pure bullshit.  Please retire "totally vindicated in your own mind"
because you have been clearly arguing with scientists to get to the point that
it is ok to modify the scientific process with doctrinal beliefs.  You wish
science to accept that axiom that there are hidden truths beyond our knowledge
and we should accept doctrinal truths as providing answers to questions that we
have not been able to answer yet.

GXKambic
standard disclaimer
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:32:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <25907@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>Leprosy, despite public sentiment to the contrary, is not particularly
>contagious.  You need prolonged, close quarters, exposure to an infected
>individual to get it.

Incidentally, the disease now known as "leprosy" is clearly not the same as
the one(s) described in Leviticus, because the Leviticus version is contagious
and has spontaneous remission and/or cure.  The priest's job (in part) is to
inspect the "leper" after a week to see whether his disease has gone away; this
would hardly be necessary or useful with current-day leprosy.  Furthermore, the
disease in the Bible can progress to a stage where it is present but no longer
contagious.

   Robert
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:38:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.011520.1606@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <5967@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna) writes:
>> One issue that I sometimes think about is 
>> Why is Mankind the only species on this planet to develop technology,
>> speech, and so many things that were required for the building of our
>> modern society.
>> 
>> Let's put the question in another simpler way, "Why is man the single most 
>> developed creature on Earth?"
>> 
>> Couldn't there be others, which just have not been given time to develop?
>> Can we interfere in such a development, in order to make it impossible?
>> Would we tolerate another "race" achieving similar things as ours?
>
>	There is no reason to assume that humans are the first
>	species to achieve intelligence,  self-awareness or technology 
>	on this planet. The 'dinosaurs' had plenty of time for this.
>	Maybe they caused the great extinction themselves. So much time
>	has passed that artifacts may be forever unavailible. 

Oh?  Then where's the evidence of their technology?  There would be, you know. 
For example, there would've been evidence of their mining of coal, oil, metals,
etc. (for one thing, we wouldn't've found the easily-available deposits that we
did).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15849 alt.atheism:16456 talk.origins:10782
From: dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 3 Sep 92 08:30:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.gedXqt_00iUyM3lRNK
	<1992Sep3.120551.22010@city.cs>
Organization: Masters student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>>>"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
>>>Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
>>>number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will
>>>turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Tim 4:3-4
>>>
>>How odd of Timothy to predict what his new religion would boil down to.
>>Some people just do not want to hear from what we evolved.  They,
>>instead, chose to believe that we were divinely created as the universe's
>>reason for being.  The myths of creation.  So Timothy was correct.
>>
>>Frank Doss 
> 
>Lord, forgive him for he does not know what he is saying.
> 
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)

I thought the comment was rather appropriate.  Creationists don't listen to
sound doctrine (science).  They gather around their own to reaffirm that they
are the top of the heap.  Their egos can't handle the fact that we aren't
"special".



David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own.          | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
============================================================================
Email:  dh4j@cmu.edu            Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"You must think before you act."  --The Children's Hour (Man-Kzin Wars)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Only a Fool Fights a Pointless Battle (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:08:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.144442.19731@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
}Either I am completely unable to commmunicate the point I was trying to
}make (which I thought was both simple and non-controvercial), or that
}point is entirely unwelcome here.  Which of the two is fact is
}unimportant.  The results are the same.

Hmmmmm.  This another of those self-declared exclusive sets?  For instance, I
would add "Drew is wrong and can't quite seem to figure it out."
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: QM revisited.
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:11:45 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

I've just come across some entertaining quotes:


"Those who are not shocked by quantum theory do not understand it" Neils Bohr

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I had anything to do with it" Erwin Schroedinger



For those of you who remember the QM debate we had a few months ago
on sci.skeptic,

                  Enjoy.