You are lucky to have a great fiber optic network- think you top the list.
On May 30, 12:55 am, allan deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > Pat is probably working at home,, and he has no internet there > Allan > > > > > > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Ash <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Where's Pat when we need him? > > >> > On 5/23/2011 8:08 AM, [email protected] 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<[email protected]> 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< > > >> > >> [email protected]> 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<[email protected]> > >> 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< > >> > >>>> [email protected]> 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<[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> > >> 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<[email protected]> > >> 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 -
