We were considering it, but damn $300-500/mo. We don't have the revenues
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<[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 -
