tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post111454876393998218..comments2023-10-18T03:56:28.984-04:00Comments on Howard Lovy's NanoBot: An armchair nanotube quarterbackUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-1114696966886275332005-04-28T10:02:00.000-04:002005-04-28T10:02:00.000-04:00Power cables? Cool! We can hook one to the satel...Power cables? Cool! We can hook one to the satellite at the top of the Space elevator and use it to pump energy down to Earth. Oh, wait, the lifter cables will already do that. Never mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-1114607474263707722005-04-27T09:11:00.000-04:002005-04-27T09:11:00.000-04:00These days it seems people (in the US anyway) are ...These days it seems people (in the US anyway) are against space in general. The X-Prize didn't quite generate as much interest in the commoners as I thought it would. Nobody cares about a giant camera in orbit. Shuttle launches are taken as a common event unless disaster strikes it. People just don't seem interested in spending the money on something they can't touch or interact with. Ask someone about going to Mars and they're likely to respond with "Why spend money on that? We've got enough problems here that need money."<BR/><BR/>I suppose we can't really be blamed. Back in the 1950's we were afraid of the Russians doing anything neater than what we were doing, so it was important to get to the moon before them. Maybe if more people were aware that the Chinese are on the verge of starting their moonbase people would be more excited to do something space related. These days, though, space stuff is very common. You'd need something spectacular to get people really interested. Like life on Mars.<BR/><BR/>Being the cynic that I am I'd say that the baser nature of all of us needs to be enticed. Free energy (I say this because I just say my electric bill), perhaps. Or a perfomance car that doesn't need fuel. A free high speed internet. Something along those lines might generate interest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-1114586180795554752005-04-27T03:16:00.000-04:002005-04-27T03:16:00.000-04:00Halas might have some serious competition over in ...<A HREF="http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2005/04/info-in-nanoshell.html" REL="nofollow">Halas</A> might have some serious competition over in <A HREF="http://www.ibn.a-star.edu.sg/" REL="nofollow">Singapore</A>, where Dr Yi-Yan Yang has found a way to make smart drug delivery <A HREF="http://www.physorg.com/news3878.html" REL="nofollow">even smarter</A>. His nanoshells respond not only to changes in temperature, but also in pH levels. Tumor tissues are more acidic, so a change in pH would raise alarms where Halas' shells would just cruise on by. That will get the drugs into deep tissues or cell compartments without the need to cook 'em up. That's been one flaw in Halas' technology, an inability to go where you can't zap the shells.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you can bet that serious bucks will go to Halas and other leading cancer researchers. I've noticed that the NCI Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer has significantly improved its <A HREF="http://nano.cancer.gov/" REL="nofollow">Web site,</A> and the nanotech "breakthrough of the week" seems to always involve cancer these days.<BR/><BR/>Is that enough of a national goal to really get the nation pumped up about nano? Of course, the logical answer is that it should be. However, the reality is that increased lifespans and cancer survival rates will happen over time, and future generations will notice the change. Where's the moment of triumph? Where's the "one small step for man"?<BR/><BR/>HowardHoward Lovyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04901713018468508005noreply@blogger.com