/sci/ - Science & Math

>Both of which are likely to occur within our lifetimes

Think again

>>2275381
>Black guy
>His hand is yellow

>>2275388
>Black men have lighter palms

WHAAAAT

Because, epicness aside, Deus Ex was and is still pretty much unknown to people.

In a way.

The big public has been concentrating on the here and now for the past two decades, instead of what might or will be.

Also there's the current hype of "humon tech is teh eeeeeevul", just look at the scifi films that HAVE come out recently.

TL;DR: Fucking hollywood hippies.

>>2275388
>implying its not his hand on the glass

>implying owls are birds

>>2275381

>>2275381

>>2275381

CENTER PASSES TO WING, BACK TO CENTER.
CENTER HOLDS IT, HOLDS IT, HOLDS IT!

>>2275385

But there are already meta-materials being constructed; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial

>>2275381

Be glad they don't. Look at how the big scare of the unknown is effecting actually benefitting from genetic sciences.

It will be even worse when
OMFG SMALL MACHINES INVISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYE
SMALL MACHINES INVISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYE EVERYWHERE

>>2275481
you just discovered germs

I agree with OP.

I just constantly debate over the time frame.

Being from an academic point of view with some nanotech research, development seems to move so slowly, but when I read of advancements from labs and industries around the world I get excited. Just knowing that theoreticists have shown that diamond mechanosynthesis is possible is incredible. I cannot wait for fully functional molecularly precise nanotechnology.

I'm glad there's limited public awareness of the topic. It keeps luddites and alarmists from freaking out. On the other hand, I think the particular applications of nanotechnology that will change the future most (biomedical applications) are often overlooked even by futurists and commentators.

>>2275489
Yes he did, but since they're man-made in this case, it must mean they are evil.

>>2275489

Yeah, but the germs are part of the creation, whereas the nanotech is the result of EVIL SCIENCE. My point was that some things are better off outside the plain view of the fanatic masses.

>>2275503
If you think creationists are the primary force opposing technologies like these, you're deluded. The core of the opposition comes from a technophobic populist left.

>>2275512
>technophobic populist left.
lolno.

literally everything anti-science is right wing.

>>2275500
>>2275503
>>2275481
>microscopic machines
>microscopic cameras
>microscopic cameras on microscopic machines
ya'll cant see the implications here?

>>2275512

I see that your vision on the issue is affected by your American perspective. My choice of wording was flawed, however. I meant that the big masses regardless of their view on creation are reluctant to tamper with what they view as the natural state of things. The irony of that does not escape me.

>>2275515
Yep, deluded. Why don't you open your eyes and look, for example, at genetic engineering. More than 95% of the opposition to "genetically modified organisms" and "tampering with life's code" comes from the left. Failure to see this is tantamount to wilful blindness. Then there's animal research, geoengineering, efficient industrial agriculture, etc. These people always cry doom over humanity's problems, but oppose any proactive solutions that don't involve surrendering the advantages our modern technology has given us.

>>2275503

>implying the "elite" should hide things from the "masses" for thier own good
>implying philosopher king
>implying implications of authoritarian personality
>implying you herped so hard you derped
>implying you should get off my /sci/

>>2275517

Not nanotechnology exactly but I did hear in a lecture some time ago that the next stage of unmanned drone development would be a flying device so small it can get through the cracks of doors and plant poison upon the skin of a suspected terrorist.

Now that's fucking nightmarish.

>>2275532
yeah and the worst part is that it's reality.
THERE SHALL BE NO ESCAPE.

>>2275532

DARPA is already developing "Smart Dust" for surveillance and reconnaissance.

Weaponized nanotechnology is not a new point of discussion. I strongly recommend reading Prey by Michael Crichton. It's popular works like this that should spark discussion, not ignorant unwarranted fear.

>>2275532
>the next stage of unmanned drone development would be a flying device so small it can get through the cracks of doors and plant poison upon the skin of a suspected terrorist.

OH HELL NAW

>>2275549
>It's popular works like this that should spark discussion, not ignorant unwarranted fear.
what does this statement mean exactly?

>>2275517

Oh, you.

I'm not about to exit /sci/ just yet, and not implying philosopher king. Technocracy maybe.

Let's put it this way. I'm not supporting acts of secrecy in any form, but seeing how science is sold to the masses I am more than glad that some things are too obscure to get media hype at the early stages of technology.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1

>>2275555
Hey man, I'd be inclined to agree, if only I knew what the HELL you were on about...

>>2275562

Sorry, I was supposed to refer to

>>2275530

>>2275553

The idea of swarming nanobots or a grey goo scenario should be a terrifying thought to anyone. It doesn't mean it will happen, there has been loads of discussion on the regulation of nanotech research. Unfortunately, to some after hearing about these scenarios they think we should stop all nanotech research period, but doing so would just push development underground where it would not be regulated.

Why don't politicians just take all our spare money and pour it into scientific research? I mean, I guess there wouldn't be an economic drive for scientists to do good or important research if it were really easy to get funding, but I want advances now!

inb4 we don't have spare money. We would if we didn't take such a stand on intending to police the world.

the problem with this technology is that every single technology on earth that was ever invented was first used to kill or opress people before it was used for human good

so basically this will mean the the CIA/US military will be able to kill whoever they want and have near-omniscience about anything they want with this micro cameras/etc

>>2275582
Fire was used in society before it was used in warfare.

>>2275585
you don't know that.

i am willing to bet that we realized we could burn other people's stupid fucking huts or whatever we had down with fire almost immediately

>>2275576
>inb4 we don't have spare money. We would if we didn't take such a stand on intending to police the world.
If all money spent on the wars went to NASA, we'd probably have a Martian fucking colony by now.

>>2275600
More like a small city.

>>2275590
So in other words, your strong stance on all technologies being first used for killing and oppression is based on mere assertion and shifting the burden of proof.

How about antibiotics? Internal combustion engines? Vaccination? Plastics?

>>2275576

I personally believe there should be far more public-sector funding of research & development and in a transparent way rather than inefficiently funnelling billions through a corrupt and immoral military-industrial complex.

I mean the point of Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative ("Star Wars") program was never that it would work -it doesn't and won't-, it was a way of simultaneously enriching military contractors who are either former-military personnel or lobbyists but also a form of Military Keynesianism to develop faster computers and better optics. There are actually more reasons for this institutional construct, if you want I can go into it further.

Japan actually has a government board that makes far more efficient investments into research & development and it really shows.

TL; DR: In Amerika, everything is fucked!

>the next stage of unmanned drone development would be a flying device so small it can get through the cracks of doors and plant poison upon the skin of a suspected terrorist.

bitches don't know about my genetic enhancements (which will be available before nano-tech at the rate the human genome is being studied), making me immune to the poisons faster then they can devlop them

>>2275601
>145 Billion Dollars
HHHNNNNGGGGG

really? I always think civilization will be extinguished by war in my lifetime. I may just be pessimistic, but in all honesty I'm betting on complete degradation of the US in my lifetime.

>>2275649
People have been talking like that since the dawn of time.

>>2275654

But individual civilizations have actually always fallen. I think there is a very high propability that Europe and North America will degrade in the next 50 years or so, to the point where they resemble the current Middle East in terms of science, economy, and individual rights.

>>2275654

Only now we have nuclear weapons with early-warning fail-safe mechanisms that have almost obliterated the northern hemisphere when a weather balloon flew over Southern Russia in the 90's.

Fuck also this man is essentially responsible for why we're all alive today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

>>2275669
>meanwhile In Australia

>>2275678

Bumping for more discussion.

No one wants to have machines in their organism just like no one likes to hear that they have a parasite. Nanotechnology is so open for abuse it's ridiculous. Every piece of SF ever has warned us NOT to implement nanotechnology

>>2275711
your response?
>>2275696

>>2275711

die in a fire

>>2275716
well said

>>2275678

More likely meanwhile in China with the way things are heading.

>>2275731
I only said that because I'm from Australia.
No one ever mentions us in their end of days scenarios.

>>2275714

Leaving aside the troll content, there are potentially extremely real and serious health implications of nanotechnology that obviously need a regulatory framework and system of evaluation.

no one itt has said why nanotechnology will be better for us. small cameras? who fucking cares.

nanotechnology is a bigger joke than climate change. I lol at my friend who is doing a mech eng degree + nanotech.

>>2275846

>climate change

>joke

>citation necessary

>try to provide more than HURR DURR ITS SNOWING OUTSIDE

>>2275846

>Climate change.
>Joke.

You've not just implied, but flatly proven you don't understand how science works.

>>2275850
>>2275854
Bazinga Faggots!! 2/2

Also, did you know that if you use ff and you want to quickly find a term, say Bazinga for example, just press '/' then type 'Bazinga'

>>2275842

If a universal constructor can be built, you would be able to fabricate matter at the molecular level out of basic elements. You could make an inexhaustible amount of gold, coal, uranium, diamond, edible proteins, etc.

Biomedically; molecular machines could filter toxins or deleterious substances out of your blood stream or destroy cancer cells.

>>2275854

There is no evidence to suggest that climate change has been affected by man. The Earth goes through cyclical periods of temperature rise and drop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#The_mainstream_scientific_position.2C_and_ch
allenges_to_it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician_period#Climate_and_sea_level

>>2275854
>science
>climate change

Go play in traffic.

>>2275869
I like this guy. If I was gay I'd park my car in your garage, then reverse and re-attempt to park, then repeat this process several times until the garage seeped an un-godly form of automobile fluid and the garage owner cried in pain at the mess that I made in his garage. Fortunately I'm not gay.

>>2275868

Could you explain to me how this would work? How could you transmute, say, Helium into Oxygen; or Lead into Gold?

I know you could remove a few protons and electrons (they might not even have to be removed, based on my limited understanding of atomic physics), but how damn small would these creatures have to be to be able to affect an atoms nucleus without splitting it?

>>2275868
>molecular machines could filter toxins or deleterious substances out of your blood stream or destroy cancer cells.
I don't need that shit.

>>2275878

Oh you. I'd fuck your arsehole so hard, you won't shit right for a week (no homo).

>>2275869

Do you really believe that any evidence you present here could trump entire fields of scientific inquiry to which people have dedicated hundreds of thousands, if not millions of man-years of intellectual endeavour and observation?

Do you seriously believe anything you raise here has not been considered by at least hundreds of people who have dedicated their lives to researching the causes and effects of climate change?

>There is no evidence to suggest that climate change has been affected by man.
>There is no evidence.
>Monvisagequand.jpg

Evidently there's enough evidence to create a concensus of about 96- sorry, 97%* of active climatologists.

*{http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php}

Sorry, but man-made climate change denial is on par with creationism and its proponents are as deluded, as cynical and manipulative. Only the ramifications of their "contribution" to the discourse is far more dire.
Now get the fuck off /sci/.

>>2275886
Wow that's such a potty mouth.

If I was gay I'd definately invite you over to my place so we could bbq some sauasages because I know you like sausages. Then we would take turns showering and 'accidentally' drop the soap several times. Then I would wash both your semen and blood down the drain of the shower, before then checking on how those sausages are going. Fortunately I'm not gay,

>>2275891

>implying climatologists don't just believe what the consensus believe and that the deniers aren't blackballed out of the community

Also, you hadn't refuted my argument, simply applied an argument from authority. Show me proof that anthropogenic global warming is true.

>>2275891

P.S. What the hell is a man-year?
Men invented the year, so I assume you're referring to 365 days?

>>2275896

Mmm, I love sausages. Just love to choke on them, and I play with my brown hole too (no homo).

>>2275898
>Evidently there's enough evidence to create a concensus of about 96- sorry, 97%* of active climatologists.
>implying climatologists don't just believe what the consensus believe and that the deniers aren't blackballed out of the community
>Show me proof that anthropogenic global warming is true.
Do you eat bleach or something?

>>2275901

Where's that evidence, brah?

>>2275902
...A lot of bleach, it seems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

>>2275902
Exactly.

If I was gay I'd totally dip my sausage roll in your sauce. Repeatedly, until you complained that there was too much sauce to spare. Fortunately I'm not gay.

>>2275909

Dude, if you're thinking I'm refuting the evidence that the Earth is warming up, you're dead wrong. I refuse to believe however, that mankind has affected global climate significantly.
Also, how would you explain this?
This is from your source, and it seems to highlight that the Earth has gone through a period of cyclical change in temperature throughout the millenia.

>>2275913

>highlight
Indicate, rather.

>>2275913
>BECAUSE PEOPLE DIE OF NATURAL CAUSES, IT MUST MEAN THAT ALL THOSE JEWS HITLER SUPPOSEDLY KILLED ACTUALLY DIED OF NATURAL CAUSES

just 'highlighting' your ignorance for you

>>2275940

What?
Though, that's the only response I've had so far, so I'm willing to take that /sci/ is either a bunch of trolls or armchair scientists. Or both.

>>2275954

Or we're [sometimes] smart enough to avoid participating in pointless shitstorms.

>>2275913
No one is denying the data .. but

>I refuse to believe however, that mankind has affected global climate significantly.

How? Why? You can't argue that we aren't pumping a shitload of CO2 and CH4 (thanks McDonalds) into the atmosphere. I don't see how cutting back on these emissions is a bad thing, whether this will affect global warming on a large scale, or not.

>>2275960

>shitstorm
>relatively civil argument
lolwut

>>2275899
>What the hell is a man-year?
Like a man-hour, except for years. One guy works for a year? That's a man-year. 365 guys work for a day? That's also a man-year. A team of 10 guys works for 219 days? That's 6 man-years.

Also, I'm glad technocracyfag up there said he's not advocating secrecy, because that will most assuredly ruin science. A technocracy is an idea with merit worth debating over, but hiding knowledge from the "plebs" is NOT going to end well.

>>2275960
I like this guy, If I was gay I'd totally let him tighten my screw, if you know what I mean. Fortunately I;m not gay.

>>2275970

"The threat is more powerful than the execution." - Savielly Tartakower.

A shitstorm waiting to happen is still a shitstorm. A global warming debate is a shitstorm waiting to happen.

>>2275965

It's not a bad thing to stop polluting the atmosphere, but that's not what we're arguing about.

>>2275913

>I've just proven I can't interpret a graph.

Okay, you've just presented evidence in favour of global warming without realising it.

If you check out the x axis (that flat thing), you'll see the scale is over hundreds of thousands of years. The y axis (that tall thing) you'll see the temperature variation is about 14 degrees. Even the most rapid change in temperature as indicated on this graph takes thousands of years.

We're currently on track to raise the temperature of Earth 4 degrees in this coming century.

Also, for every degree the world warms about ten percent of the global food supply is wiped out. Considering we live in a world that already experiences mass starvation and famine, that number alone should be sobering.

To the left is proof man's actions have an impact on atmospheric temperature, you see how between 1943 and 1979 Earth's temperature is relatively stable? It was caused by aerosol particles such as chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight, which were then banned because of their effect on the Ozone layer. If you just rise to the minimal standard of intellectual honesty and be cognisant of this effect, why is a similar human effect that explains what you accept to be happening (climate-change) not possible?

>>2275982

Refute this.

>>2275982
>hundreds of thousands of years
Because we've been measuring for hundreds of thousands of years.

If I was gay I'd totally rape your butthole mr,.Fortunately I'm not gay,

>>2275983
Correlation does not imply causation.

>>2275982

>In before "DAT STABLE PERIOD WAS CAUSED BY LESS SUN SPOT ACTIVITY!1"

(It wasn't)

>>2275983
We landed on the moon in '69. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

>>2275983

Derek Trucks's music since 2002.

Personally, I want to move away from climate change debate/flame war and back to a discussion of current/future nanotechnology development.

My two cents on the topic, there has been work on utilizing a nanotech approach for carbon sequestering to reduce excess gases in the atmosphere.

I have a question, though,

Have we proved Diamond Mechanosynthesis is actually possible or impossible, or are we still on the theory phase?

>>2277526

Still very theoretical, I do not believe it can be physically accomplished yet. But the models are there that it is possible, just not with current technology.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/04/robert-freitas-awarded-historic-first.html

If you are interested, look more into the work of Ralph Merkle and Robert Freitas.

>>2277537

Thank you sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.