list.
On May 30, 12:55 am, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pat is probably working at home,, and he has no internet there
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To stand in the wind of knowledge and be inspired to learn, find hope,
> > meaning and be uplifted seems to me the place to stand. In this way I find
> > Pat inspiring too, among many. Not sure there is enough time in this
> > universe to understand 'the true nature of reality', everything is so
> > relational! Who can say at any time that 'this' is it, I agree we are likely
> > far from it.
>
> > On 5/29/2011 8:36 PM, Chuck Bowling wrote:
>
> > Nanotech is just the implementation of another layer of our understanding
> > of the universe. I think we still have a long ways to go before we actually
> > have a firm grasp on the true nature of reality.
>
> > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Menfranco Laws <menfra...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Hi everybody!
> >> Well said Ash, where is Pat indeed when we need him to say God's
> >> things, because for me when you are talking about nanotech makes me
> >> thing about God and ask myself this question; Is this nanotech the
> >> link between us and God? Perhaps once we have learned enough about
> >> this nanotech we be able to understand how God works? Who knows? it is
> >> just a thought.
>
> >> On May 24, 9:48 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Where's Pat when we need him?
>
> >> > On 5/23/2011 8:08 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> >> > > I'm fairly certian this site is not umm being honest. As far as I
> >> > > know we simply have not yet managed to do this.
>
> >> > > One of the biggest problems in quantum compting is that old quantum
> >> > > chestnut of simply by looking we influence the result.
>
> >> > > With Quantum bit (Qbit) computing, the idea is to make use of the
> >> > > verious quantum states of a moclucule, so that a Qbit can hold
> >> > > possibly 4 (all to do with spin) pieces of data at the same time. The
> >> > > problem comes in retriving this data and ensuring that by 'reading'
> >> > > the data it remains unchanged.
>
> >> > > On May 20, 10:17 pm, gabbydott<gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> Thanks for providing me with the right key words. And this is the
> >> stuff I
> >> > >> meant:http://www.dwavesys.com/en/products-services.html
>
> >> > >> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Chuck Bowling<
>
> >> > >> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >>> Nanotechnology is used in a lot of places but it's still far from
> >> reaching
> >> > >>> its full potential. Right now most nanotech is just new applications
> >> of
> >> > >>> materials science. Potentially nanotech could be used to create
> >> robots
> >> > >>> smaller than a single human cell or for that matter to create new
> >> life.
> >> > >>> As to quantum physics, it provides insight into microelectronics.
> >> But the
> >> > >>> hope is that one day we will be able to create computers based on
> >> quantum
> >> > >>> spin. That still hasn't happened yet.
> >> > >>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, gabbydott<gabbyd...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>>> What? I thought nanotech was already in use in the cosmetics
> >> industry and
> >> > >>>> quantatech (is that how you call it?) in the computer industry.
> >> > >>>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Chuck Bowling<
> >> > >>>> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >>>>> I'm in agreement about the radical changes that nanotech appear to
> >> > >>>>> promise. Changes that could spell doom or a complete redefinition
> >> of what it
> >> > >>>>> is to be human. It's about the only thing that makes me want to
> >> live longer
> >> > >>>>> than my allotted time. Just so that I can see what miracles come
> >> next.
> >> > >>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >>>>>> Yeah, I was fear mongering Chuck, a political device. ;-) This
> >> is a
> >> > >>>>>> favorite topic of mine, it is at the axis of many fields. To
> >> accelerate
> >> > >>>>>> nanotech development I think we should implement rapid
> >> prototyping,
> >> > >>>>>> experimentation and analysis systems. When I envision man at the
> >> beginning
> >> > >>>>>> of this revolution I look for tools that would allow an explosion
> >> > >>>>>> (figuratively) of development, being able to catalog and operate
> >> a multitude
> >> > >>>>>> of experiments in parallel, while building a massive library of
> >> modeled
> >> > >>>>>> behavior for materials and systems interoperating in the real
> >> world to
> >> > >>>>>> improve the robustness and diversity of this technology is
> >> apparently the
> >> > >>>>>> way to go. To think that the behavior of biological systems can
> >> be
> >> > >>>>>> abstracted and used to formulate dynamic systems guided by expert
> >> algorithms
> >> > >>>>>> to solve material challenges in real time guided by people over
> >> vast
> >> > >>>>>> distances, it goes beyond genetics, I am in awe at the potential
> >> universe we
> >> > >>>>>> are venturing toward. We will also be able to make changes to
> >> ourselves and
> >> > >>>>>> our experience of this world at a similar rate..
> >> > >>>>>> On 5/19/2011 1:41 AM, Chuck Bowling wrote:
> >> > >>>>>> I think that with nanotechnology we will be able to synthesize
> >> pretty
> >> > >>>>>> much anything we want from raw materials in the future. Assuming
> >> that any
> >> > >>>>>> alien race capable of traveling the trillions of miles to get
> >> here would
> >> > >>>>>> have at least the same level of technology my guess is that they
> >> wouldn't
> >> > >>>>>> need anything we'd have to offer.
> >> > >>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>> There is another good reason to develop our technologies as a
> >> species,
> >> > >>>>>>> think how we are looking at the planets and celestial bodies as
> >> vast
> >> > >>>>>>> resources. Imagine if something else came through and strip
> >> mined the
> >> > >>>>>>> resources we would need to develop into a spacefaring species,
> >> that would
> >> > >>>>>>> suck big time. Like a tribe of humans moving through and picking
> >> all the
> >> > >>>>>>> nuts we squirrels need, or worse, deciding we were in the way of
> >> those
> >> > >>>>>>> resources, think what we have done in those situations.. I know
> >> it's
> >> > >>>>>>> unlikely considering the vast resources out there, but something
> >> might have
> >> > >>>>>>> it's eye on our pale blue dot too, working faster than us at
> >> making the
> >> > >>>>>>> leap.
> >> > >>>>>>> On 5/18/2011 8:37 PM, Chuck Bowling wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>> I think right now the technology will only allow us to tell if a
> >> planet
> >> > >>>>>>> is rocky or a gas giant. And even then only if it is a
> >> relatively massive
> >> > >>>>>>> planet. The last time I read anything on the subject the
> >> smallest planet
> >> > >>>>>>> found was something like 3 times the size of the Earth.
> >> > >>>>>>> IMO, the analogy with Columbus doesn't hold. 17th century
> >> technology
> >> > >>>>>>> allowed humans to travel anywhere on the Earth - albeit slow and
> >> wrought
> >> > >>>>>>> with hazard. If the analogy is that a neighboring star is like a
> >> new
> >> > >>>>>>> continent then we are more like cavemen discovering that a log
> >> can float. At
> >> > >>>>>>> the rate we're going it might be a thousand years before we can
> >> actually
> >> > >>>>>>> mount an expedition to another star.
> >> > >>>>>>> I think the primary reason we are so far from actually exploring
> >> other
> >> > >>>>>>> stars is mainly political rather than technological. But, I
> >> think you are
> >> > >>>>>>> right. It is a project worth attaching too. Now if we could just
> >> make the
> >> > >>>>>>> damn politicians see it that way... ;)
> >> > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>>> I'm not sure how accurate they can be in revealing planets
> >> enough like
> >> > >>>>>>>> ours to offer possibilities of a new promised land. They claim
> >> there
> >> > >>>>>>>> is one 20 light years away, or 300,000 years at current space
> >> travel
> >> > >>>>>>>> speeds. One can feel that this at least puts us somewhere near
> >> the
> >> > >>>>>>>> position of 'Columbus'. Our current 'tin-foil' technology
> >> won't do,
> >> > >>>>>>>> but at this kind of distance we are talking about something
> >> other than
> >> > >>>>>>>> worm-holes, 'relativity flight' or the kind of physics in which
> >> > >>>>>>>> distance is an illusion.
> >> > >>>>>>>> For someone like me who can't take god-stories seriously and
> >> quite
> >> > >>>>>>>> likes the idea of a human future (or at least the idea of
> >> evolution
> >> > >>>>>>>> not just ending through catastrophe), there is an opportunity
> >> to
> >> > >>>>>>>> believe in something distant in time and a need for us to
> >> direct
> >> > >>>>>>>> ourselves towards it. A time, perhaps in which a form of
> >> conscious
> >> > >>>>>>>> life can live very differently from now, and a project worth
> >> attaching
> >> > >>>>>>>> to - perhaps a reason for spirituality. Comments on this or
> >> the
> >> > >>>>>>>> technology welcome.- Hide quoted text -
> >> > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> (
> )
> I_D Allan
>
> If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
> Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment