5 ms·

I can sympathize with this. But I also think it's wrong on many points. Feynman's point that "there's plenty of room at the bottom" is extremely relevant to the

by glimcat 15y ago

I can sympathize with this. But I also think it's wrong on many points. Feynman's point that "there's plenty of room at the bottom" is extremely relevant to the modern age; most of our marvels are now Small Stuff rather than the Big Stuff that Neal calls for. I'm crazy for space exploration, but unmanned exploration really is the stronger option at this point. I get excited over large trussed structures, but cheap handheld medical scanners which don't require an expert operator are going to do more to relieve human suffering. I'd love to see more innovation - but in spite of everything, there's more today than ever before. It's hard to see sometimes because a lot of the big stuff is twenty years out or more. All it is today is a project in some academic lab, just a seed. But how else are you going to get your miracles?

tsotha 15y ago
>Feynman's point that "there's plenty of room at the bottom" is extremely relevant to the modern age; most of our marvels are now Small Stuff rather than the Big Stuff that Neal calls for. We understand quite a bit more than we used to at that level, but there hasn't yet been a lot of tangible benefit. We haven't sped up the pace of drug development, and haven't developed nanomechanical computers (no Young Lady's Illustrated Primer). We haven't developed Drexler's universal constructors. Of course, we do have see-through zinc oxide. So there's that.
- glimcat 15y ago
  > We haven't sped up the pace of drug development http://fold.it/portal/info/science http://fold.it/portal/info/science > haven't developed nanomechanical computers micro: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2007/LC/b708764k http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2007/LC/b70876... nano: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5229 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5229 Not that either is going to replace transistors-in-silicon when it comes to density of processing power. > no Young Lady's Illustrated Primer Incidentally, the story describes a "Wizard of Oz" implementation. The more complex interactions of the primer are handled by a human actor behind the scenes. > We haven't developed Drexler's universal constructors Take your pick of DNA synthesis, chemical synthesis, nucleosynthesis, antihydrogen, 3d printing, two-photon fabrication - oh, and the 16 nm semiconductor process. Not quite magic goo, but pretty effective nonetheless. > we do have see-through zinc oxide Transparent aluminum: http://www.physorg.com/news167925273.html http://www.physorg.com/news167925273.html
  - tsotha 15y ago
    >> We haven't sped up the pace of drug development > >http://fold.it/portal/info/science http://fold.it/portal/info/science Yes, and where is the drug? The world seems to be overflowing with "promising drug targets", but what actually gets approved is longer lasting pecker perkers and yet another blood pressure medication. >> haven't developed nanomechanical computers > >micro: > >http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2007/LC/b70876.. http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2007/LC/b70876.... > >nano: > >http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5229 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5229 Well, okay, there has been some progress in the lab that seems to have led to not much practical. The microfluidics holds big promise. Just like it has for decades. Use this technology to make a closed-loop artificial pancreas... that will be progress. >> no Young Lady's Illustrated Primer > > Incidentally, the story describes a "Wizard of Oz" implementation. The more complex interactions of the primer are handled by a human actor behind the scenes. Heh. I'd forgotten about the actor. Must read that book again. Why oh why are they charging $12 for the ebook version of a novel published in 1995? More than the paperback? >> We haven't developed Drexler's universal constructors > >Take your pick of DNA synthesis, chemical synthesis, nucleosynthesis, antihydrogen, 3d printing, two-photon fabrication - oh, and the 16 nm semiconductor process. Not quite magic goo, but pretty effective nonetheless. That's a long, long way from magic goo. I wasn't trying to say there's been no progress, just that the rate of technological progress is slower than it was. Most of what you've pointed out here hasn't made it out of the lab yet.
    - glimcat 15y ago
      > what actually gets approved is longer lasting pecker perkers and yet another blood pressure medication That's a problem with the industry and the government, not so much with the research. But I'd love to see improvements there. Also, there are some fun tricks with augmented reality and chemistry. teaching: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/scripps/ http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/scripps/ drug prototyping: http://boingboing.net/2011/09/26/chemistry-of-the-future-3d-models-and-augmented-reality.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29&utm_content=Google+Reader http://boingboing.net/2011/09/26/chemistry-of-the-future-3d-... > there has been some progress in the lab that seems to have led to not much practical. MEMS has only been a thing for about a decade. Fancy sensors for your cell phone are more profitable, so they get industrial support and make it out of the lab faster. It's not easy to get adequate funding for academic research, and it's a million times easier (more, really) to MVP a SaaS startup than it is to get innovative tech out of the lab. Industry is often 10-20 years behind academic research, sometimes more. Just look at the state of nuclear power plants.

by glimcat 15y ago

tsotha 15y ago

>Feynman's point that "there's plenty of room at the bottom" is extremely relevant to the modern age; most of our marvels are now Small Stuff rather than the Big Stuff that Neal calls for. We understand quite a bit more than we used to at that level, but there hasn't yet been a lot of tangible benefit. We haven't sped up the pace of drug development, and haven't developed nanomechanical computers (no Young Lady's Illustrated Primer). We haven't developed Drexler's universal constructors. Of course, we do have see-through zinc oxide. So there's that.

glimcat 15y ago
> We haven't sped up the pace of drug development http://fold.it/portal/info/science http://fold.it/portal/info/science > haven't developed nanomechanical computers micro: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2007/LC/b708764k http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2007/LC/b70876... nano: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5229 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5229 Not that either is going to replace transistors-in-silicon when it comes to density of processing power. > no Young Lady's Illustrated Primer Incidentally, the story describes a "Wizard of Oz" implementation. The more complex interactions of the primer are handled by a human actor behind the scenes. > We haven't developed Drexler's universal constructors Take your pick of DNA synthesis, chemical synthesis, nucleosynthesis, antihydrogen, 3d printing, two-photon fabrication - oh, and the 16 nm semiconductor process. Not quite magic goo, but pretty effective nonetheless. > we do have see-through zinc oxide Transparent aluminum: http://www.physorg.com/news167925273.html http://www.physorg.com/news167925273.html
- tsotha 15y ago
  >> We haven't sped up the pace of drug development > >http://fold.it/portal/info/science http://fold.it/portal/info/science Yes, and where is the drug? The world seems to be overflowing with "promising drug targets", but what actually gets approved is longer lasting pecker perkers and yet another blood pressure medication. >> haven't developed nanomechanical computers > >micro: > >http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2007/LC/b70876.. http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2007/LC/b70876.... > >nano: > >http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5229 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5229 Well, okay, there has been some progress in the lab that seems to have led to not much practical. The microfluidics holds big promise. Just like it has for decades. Use this technology to make a closed-loop artificial pancreas... that will be progress. >> no Young Lady's Illustrated Primer > > Incidentally, the story describes a "Wizard of Oz" implementation. The more complex interactions of the primer are handled by a human actor behind the scenes. Heh. I'd forgotten about the actor. Must read that book again. Why oh why are they charging $12 for the ebook version of a novel published in 1995? More than the paperback? >> We haven't developed Drexler's universal constructors > >Take your pick of DNA synthesis, chemical synthesis, nucleosynthesis, antihydrogen, 3d printing, two-photon fabrication - oh, and the 16 nm semiconductor process. Not quite magic goo, but pretty effective nonetheless. That's a long, long way from magic goo. I wasn't trying to say there's been no progress, just that the rate of technological progress is slower than it was. Most of what you've pointed out here hasn't made it out of the lab yet.
  - glimcat 15y ago
    > what actually gets approved is longer lasting pecker perkers and yet another blood pressure medication That's a problem with the industry and the government, not so much with the research. But I'd love to see improvements there. Also, there are some fun tricks with augmented reality and chemistry. teaching: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/scripps/ http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/scripps/ drug prototyping: http://boingboing.net/2011/09/26/chemistry-of-the-future-3d-models-and-augmented-reality.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29&utm_content=Google+Reader http://boingboing.net/2011/09/26/chemistry-of-the-future-3d-... > there has been some progress in the lab that seems to have led to not much practical. MEMS has only been a thing for about a decade. Fancy sensors for your cell phone are more profitable, so they get industrial support and make it out of the lab faster. It's not easy to get adequate funding for academic research, and it's a million times easier (more, really) to MVP a SaaS startup than it is to get innovative tech out of the lab. Industry is often 10-20 years behind academic research, sometimes more. Just look at the state of nuclear power plants.