Obama eavesdropping?

[caregiverken]

How is that statement stupid? Because it's redundant?

.

Yep.

And "Paranoid" implies being scared.. I'm not scared..;)

 

[kolah]

"The World According to Squiggy."... coming to a theatre near you.

 

[Ohiofarmer]

Correction: Only what is possible is possible.

In the future we might have tiny MAVs and nanobots--but it's just not something that's around yet. Thinking we've got stuff like this crosses the line from open-minded to paranoid.

How is that statement stupid? Because it's redundant?

All it does is point out the obvious, which you chose to overlook. Everything is not possible. For instance, can you be a cat? No, you're a human--you can't be a cat. Therefore your statement that everything is possible is wrong and stupid.

When it comes to tiny MAVs, you're right--I don't know a huge amount about that stuff. I do have a good understanding that we don't have the right materials yet to do that kind of thing. There are some engineering barriers to producing something remote controlled and mosquito sized. There's plenty of reading you can do to convince yourself of this, but yes I can admit it's possible there's some shit we don't all know about yet.

When it comes to nanobots, not a chance. This is in my wheelhouse. We're super far away from having these. If we were even CLOSE there would be some carry over into "known" science from that. We're quite far away from having this type of technology--we're still learning about nanoparticles and how we can use these, functional nanomachines with directed uses are out of our grasp right now. We're still developing the "machinery" that will go into these.

If you think nano bots and nanites are a thing of the future then you are nieve and completly un-informed on anything technological. nano-bots have been around since the 90's the government simply doesn't believe people are ready for it yet.......if you don't think nanobots have been around just ask the 3 ohio universities that have nano-bot labs, o yah and have created well over 29 nano-technologies one of them being "gecko" tape. You gotta get informed before you can understand your own opinions..........Take it easy

 

[squiggly]

If you think nano bots and nanites are a thing of the future then you are nieve and completly un-informed on anything technological. nano-bots have been around since the 90's the government simply doesn't believe people are ready for it yet.......if you don't think nanobots have been around just ask the 3 ohio universities that have nano-bot labs, o yah and have created well over 29 nano-technologies one of them being "gecko" tape. You gotta get informed before you can understand your own opinions..........Take it easy

You're high.

Nanobots = don't exist yet.

We have a few things that might be PUT into nanobots in the future.

Put it this way, we have nano "simple machines"--the problem is figuring out how to link them all together to make "bots". All of the research being done is trying to find new "simple machines" and materials which can aid in this quest.

As far as the government having them and "us not being ready for it". Did "they" decide that you were ready for it and tell you specifically--or are you just making shit up (again)?

My money is on you're guessing/making shit up.

Examples of "nanomachine parts" that we have are: engines, logic gates, motors, conductive wires, and a few others.

Using "gecko tape" which is a MACRO component made out of nanoscale material just underlines how ignorant you are to the field.

I first decided to become a chemist as a result of my interest in nanotechnology, this shit is sort of my bag. Maybe you're right. Maybe the government does have shit we don't know about, but that's shit that WE don't know about--not shit that you know about and the rest of us don't.

Not unless you're some super secret government operative, in which case I think an assassin is probably headed to your house to kill you for telling all of us about government secrets.

My favorite thing about your statement is that you start by saying I must be "uninformed about anything technological" and then go on to suggest its all some big government secret. Which is it?

More likely. in my mind, is that you're just some guy pushing buttons on the internet making up a bunch of shit because smoking weed makes you super serial paranoid about the government. I find it laughable that you would attempt to lord your knowledge about things at the nanoscale over me. Do you even know what the nanoscale is? Probably not off the top of your head.

Also, those "nano-bot" labs you referenced aren't nano-bot labs at all. They are NANOTECHNOLOGY/MATERIALS labs, which is a very different thing. You just called them nano-bot labs because you want to be right.

Newsflash: You're not.

 

[caregiverken]

You're high.


My money is on you're guessing/making shit up.

blah blah
.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the government does have shit we don't know about, but that's shit that WE don't know about--not shit that you know about and the rest of us don't.

There ya go squigg now your coming around ;)

 

[squiggly]

There ya go squigg now your coming around ;)

I'm fine with saying I don't know--but that's different from someone being like:

The government DEFINITELY has them and "they've been around since the 90's" .

I can agree maybe we don't know and something is hidden, but that leaves it up in the air.

You can't use the absence of evidence as evidence. If Ohio has some information to share with us that backs up his claim, I'm keen to see it. Otherwise, it's just a damn guess. I can't say his guess is wrong--but I can call it what it is.

A guess.

 

[caregiverken]

:woot: I think it's fun to imagine all the stuff that is possible...

The possibilities are Endless! ;)

Have you seen the "star in a jar" ?

 

[Natural]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-why

 

[geologic]

Time for the tinfoil hats--
or better...

 

[Natural]

I'm fine with saying I don't know--but that's different from someone being like:

The government DEFINITELY has them and "they've been around since the 90's" .

I can agree maybe we don't know and something is hidden, but that leaves it up in the air.

You can't use the absence of evidence as evidence. If Ohio has some information to share with us that backs up his claim, I'm keen to see it. Otherwise, it's just a damn guess. I can't say his guess is wrong--but I can call it what it is.

A guess.

He's meant research started in the 90's and he's right isn't he? I think Nanotech is gonna be the next wave..so good for you for getting involved. There is a long list of current researchers in Nanorobots..don't see anything beyond research, but don't dismiss that Nanorobots exist yet...some have eluded that they are in fact gaining. I don't think in practical terms..people need to worry about them..just applaud. The practical uses as stated, would be in mostly Cancer research and other med practices..and if it goes military it would be to heal wounds much faster..or maybe even physical enhancement. The other use cited that I know of is that they would make extremely good eavesdropping applications..virtually undetectable. Other than that the only fear I can see people having is that it would somehow be a weapon..that destroys your cells. In which case a "super bug" without vaccine would do a better job.

 

[squiggly]

He's meant research started in the 90's and he's right isn't he? I think Nanotech is gonna be the next wave..so good for you for getting involved. There is a long list of current researchers in Nanorobots..don't see anything beyond research, but don't dismiss that Nanorobots exist yet...some have eluded that they are in fact gaining. I don't think in practical terms..people need to worry about them..just applaud. The practical uses as stated, would be in mostly Cancer research and other med practices..and if it goes military it would be to heal wounds much faster..or maybe even physical enhancement. The other use cited that I know of is that they would make extremely good eavesdropping applications..virtually undetectable. Other than that the only fear I can see people having is that it would somehow be a weapon..that destroys your cells. In which case a "super bug" without vaccine would do a better job.

Nanotech very much already is the next wave. There's a ton of nanotechnology around these days--just not nanorobots. The "long list of researchers" are researching TOWARDS nanorobots, but what they are actually doing research on are nanomachines, which are different. Think a lever versus a computer, a pulley versus a TV. A circuit board versus a router.

So yes we ARE getting there, we just ain't there yet. Not by a long shot. It's these types of folks who are gonna get us there, and I definitely wanna be a part of that. It's a really cool field. It might be difficult to find a job in it though, so we'll see how much I get to involve myself.

They do already have some cancer delivery systems on the nanoscale. These don't qualify as "robots" though. Robots have a program at the very least, and can typically be remotely controlled.

There is no way nanorobots are going to be used to eavesdrop. A very simple reason why--the wavelengths of sound used by the human voice are too long for something at the nanoscale to detect.

Human voice waves are measured in feet or meters where nanoscale objects are measured in nanometers (1x10^-9 meters or 0.000000001 meters). In the video that follows Mark Shaw explains that 50,000 nanometers lined up side by side are the width of a human hair. A similar argument explains why we can't take photograph of atoms (well, one reason why--there are others)--the wavelength of light we can use is too long, the atom has a shorter length than the light itself.

Before someone jumps in, yes we can "image" atoms (typically groups of atoms)--but not with photons, hence not a photograph. Even these images fall short, however, as we're unable to image nuclei or electrons as of yet.

New nanomaterials however are being created all the time and many are already in mass production. Following link is just one example that is already on the market. This is the kind of stuff I want to get into in my career. I'm also looking into nanotechnology applications in catalysis (catalysis is what I have the most experience with and what I've done the most research on).

http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_shaw_one_very_dry_demo.html

 

[Ohiofarmer]

I'm not saying their spraying nano machines into the air, but the machines themselves already exist and have for quite a while, to believe otherwise is very arrogant; and gecko tape is a nano-technology squiggs,
Carbon nanotube-based synthetic gecko tapes

www.pnas.org/content/104/26/10792
by L Ge - 2007 - Cited by 231 - Related articles
Jun 26, 2007 – Abstract. We have developed a synthetic gecko tape by transferring micropatterned carbon nanotube arrays onto flexible polymer tape based

...............thats the 1st thing that comes up when you type "gecko tape" into google..........you need to check your sources because they obviously are ignorant...........or just use google before you form a "fact o-pinion".........and yes nano materials are in full production but nanites have been as well for quite some time, to believe otherwise is misinformed, again you can use google for this you know.......and nanites are being used/researched in how to keep humans alive hypothetically forever, also repairing dna so that there is no drift in dna which would cause humans to become weaker and less intelligent....kinda easy to see this with plants over time......Take it easy

 

[geologic]

I'm not saying their spraying nano machines into the air, but the machines themselves already exist and have for quite a while, to believe otherwise is very arrogant; and gecko tape is a nano-technology squiggs,
Carbon nanotube-based synthetic gecko tapes

www.pnas.org/content/104/26/10792
by L Ge - 2007 - Cited by 231 - Related articles
Jun 26, 2007 – Abstract. We have developed a synthetic gecko tape by transferring micropatterned carbon nanotube arrays onto flexible polymer tape based

...............thats the 1st thing that comes up when you type "gecko tape" into google..........you need to check your sources because they obviously are ignorant...........or just use google before you form a "fact o-pinion".........and yes nano materials are in full production but nanites have been as well for quite some time, to believe otherwise is misinformed, again you can use google for this you know.......and nanites are being used/researched in how to keep humans alive hypothetically forever, also repairing dna so that there is no drift in dna which would cause humans to become weaker and less intelligent....kinda easy to see this with plants over time......Take it easy

====================================

Using "gecko tape" which is a MACRO component made out of nanoscale material just underlines how ignorant you are to the field.

...

 

[chickenman]

Remember when our plant was really illegal?
We spoke nothing of it on phone.
Don't you think these terrorists know they could be listening watching?
They are not stupid.

 

[squiggly]

...............thats the 1st thing that comes up when you type "gecko tape" into google..........you need to check your sources because they obviously are ignorant...........or just use google before you form a "fact o-pinion".........and yes nano materials are in full production but nanites have been as well for quite some time, to believe otherwise is misinformed, again you can use google for this you know.......and nanites are being used/researched in how to keep humans alive hypothetically forever, also repairing dna so that there is no drift in dna which would cause humans to become weaker and less intelligent....kinda easy to see this with plants over time......Take it easy

As I said gecko tape is a macro component which operates because of its nanoscale features (IE on the nanoscale it looks like a gecko's foot, but it is a large object). This is nanotechnology, but is NOT a nanomachine or a "nanite". I never said this doesn't exist I just said it's not a damn nanomachine and it's not. You're using that word improperly.

When it comes to "nanites" which are nanomachines/nanobots instead of re-explaining the shit I already said which denounces this GUESS of yours I'll make it real simple: If they're in production-- PROVE IT.

You can't because they aren't. You're making shit up (which I've noticed is a habit with you when you get backed into a corner like this).

Nanobots are in intensive R&D and we will have them some day, but as for now we only have extremely primitive nanomachines (single component machines as I said before: motors, engines, logic gates, wires).

What you're quoting here in terms of DNA repairing machines are IDEAS not things that we have created. You're 100% right that these have been conceptualized, but they're not being produced.

As for the word "nanites" I've honestly only ever seen them fully operational in--you guessed it--videogames.

So, to reiterate, prove it.

I got a pack of beans says you can't.

 

[Natural]

Pretty exciting!...of course there are so many research groups including Universities that are at the precipice of breakthroughs...the race to patents is on.

..but this is pretty off topic, especially to be causing such a fuss.

 

[caregiverken]

Pretty exciting!...of course there are so many research groups including Universities that are at the precipice of breakthroughs...the race to patents is on.

..but this is pretty off topic, especially to be causing such a fuss.

Encouraged by these results, staff at the Polytechnique NanoRobotics Laboratory are currently working to further reduce the size of the devices so that, within a few years, they can navigate inside smaller blood vessels.

That looks like some proof right dare.. :)

 

[Natural]

That looks like some proof right dare.. :)

..and that article is 6 years old...imagine where they are at with it by now!
I'll let Squiggs off the hook with the beans though (wink) not like he was challenging me to find examples.

 

[Ohiofarmer]

..and that article is 6 years old...imagine where they are at with it by now!
I'll let Squiggs off the hook with the beans though (wink) not like he was challenging me to find examples.

exactly brotha; i went to a nano robotics convention in the 90's.......trust me nanobots and nanites are in full swing production under the viel of darkness that is the world corporate entity.......take it easy

 

[Ohiofarmer]

..and that article is 6 years old...imagine where they are at with it by now!
I'll let Squiggs off the hook with the beans though (wink) not like he was challenging me to find examples.

but i'll take him up on the offer :p, i'll photocopy the first few pages of an article and a book i picked up at the convention.......take it easy