or donations to justify that!
On 5/31/2011 5:01 PM, rigsy03 wrote:
> You are lucky to have a great fiber optic network- think you top the
> 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