Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
snap
And how many of these breakthroughs cite research groups at universities as contributors to their work?
The end result is great. Edit: SOME of these companies are probably start-ups from professors that are or were employed by a university.
Want to include people who went to college too? What about grade school? Then you could say all breakthroughs only happen because of government money.
BTW, it’s not like the government isn’t funding nano-research. Billions is a pretty big number:
Oh the ethics of giving somebody taxpayer money so they can make a patent, profit, etc… eep. Let’s not discuss that. Maybe I should delete this…
I think the real answer is somewhere in the middle. Symbiotic relationship between the research universities and the private sector serves science and the citizens the best.
Do you read what you post?
Arrowhead, based in Pasadena, Calif., is advised by half a dozen professors at the California Institute of Technology.
In March, Arrowhead helped Unidym merge with Carbon Nanotechnologies, a Houston-based firm that was founded by the late nanotechnology pioneer Richard Smalley of Rice University, who won the Nobel Prize for his work.
That Time list of accomplishments is ok, but to many scientists there may have been other more important basic science breakthroughs that carry more weight than studies of circumcised men for example… just my opinion.
People have been touting nanotechnology for years already, and from what I see, it’s going to be many many many more years before any of the technology is ready to do anything more useful than simple things like preventing stains on clothing, etc.
Private sector driving research is fine, but there will always be ulterior motives at work and the risk for bias when research is being funded primarily by private vs. government dollars. That is why we as a country need to invest more into research in order to keep our status as a world leader in science and technology.
^ More money for research, health care, education, social security, infrastructure, police, fire, prisons, defense… the government isn’t some magic ATM machine.
Private industry and the drive for new products that create new profits will always push innovation faster than government money, all without without burdening the taxpayer. I’m not saying the government shouldn’t fund research because they should. Billions in research grants just for nanotechnology if you look at the link I posted earlier. Unfortunately any time the government gives out money there is always someone wanting more. I’m fine with giving more to research if you cut more from bloated social programs. Just don’t give more and then raise taxes or fees to pay for it.
And nanotechnology has advanced well past stain proof pants.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/26/nanotech-breakthroughs-ibm-pf-guru-in_jw_1227soapbox_inl.html
My 2 cents on the Forbes article:
#1: Proof of concept: meaning we’re still 20 years away from using these to do anything useful
#2: Nanoparticles: nice observation if they want some more, my winter beater is probably shedding these into the environment at an alarming rate
#3: Ok, now this is finally some good use of nano-tech. Bravo!
#4: “hundreds of times slower than today’s silicon processors” So at this rate, maybe another 10 years and they might be equal in speed, but who knows…
#5: I have some knowledge of these because I work in the same area. So here’s my take on that: They call them nanoparticles, because they are small, biological particles that can be made to do useful things. This is more of a chemistry/biology finding than development of what everyone thinks of as nano-technology. To compare what they’re talking about to mini-nano machines that everyone thinks of when they hear nanotechnology is not right.
I don’t think you actually understand that the end result (a “breakthrough”) is just the tip of years of effort and experience. Money is a poor motivator if the ends are distant. In this stage, a desire to understand is much better.
Our understanding expands at a glacial pace.
Regardless of who pays for this research, doesn’t it make your jaw drop?
Is it just me?
Do people not believe in this stuff or does it not excite you because it seems so far off in time?
They compare this to the computer revelution which I think is a joke.
This will totally change the lives of people in EVERY corner of this planet.
:gotme:
Bump because we need a big break through like right now.
It’s our only hope. lol
hmm…can nanotech make credit?
well now that your open this week start research
You honestly think that nanomachinary will reach african jungles before computers?
You also think that the age of the computational revolution was a joke?
Don’t you run a machine shop? A “state of the art” machine shop? Do you mean to tell me that you of all people cannot see the daily & super-invasive difference that computing power makes?
For fucks sake you’re posting on the internet.
:fuzzyfish:
No its extremely poor form (5 months later)
This is why we can’t have nice things…
http://www.workplacemagazine.com/Ezinestory/Safety/2008/Nov/11142008Article1.htm
nanotechnology sucks
…:io: