If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Mechanics)   Yet another piece of science-fiction technology is set to become reality: 3D-printed biobots that will crawl through your body, targeting toxins. All hail our robotic innerlords   (popularmechanics.com) divider line 31
    More: Spiffy, front crawls, scientific reports, toxins, environmental monitoring, scaffolds, muscle cells, Popular Mechanics  
•       •       •

1389 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Nov 2012 at 10:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-16 09:12:32 AM  
Was the SCARY tag turned into a mutant by nanites?
 
2012-11-16 10:33:18 AM  
Can I print out a tiny Dennis Quaid?
 
2012-11-16 10:41:25 AM  
Will they be distributed via egg salad sandwiches at truck-stops?
 
2012-11-16 10:44:17 AM  
Wake me when 3D printing puts GW out of business.
 
2012-11-16 10:46:45 AM  
MY ANCESTORS CAME OVER ON THE SANDWICH!
 
2012-11-16 10:50:06 AM  

Mugato: Was the SCARY tag turned into a mutant by nanites?


As someone who works in nanophysics, we are actually REALLY REALLY REALLY far from true nanites. We're still even having difficulty making complex nanostructures (That is, combining multiple nanoparticles of different shapes). The two methods have their pitfalls: Top-down lithographic design/creation is limited by the wavelength of the beam you use: You can only make stuff so small. Bottom up chemical assembly has STUPID amounts of error and things sticking where they shouldn't. For instance, if you wanted to make a barbel-shape, and stick two spheres to the end of a rod... you'd also get spheres sticking together, to the sides of rods, rods making daisy-chains or compacting against each other, etc.

Basically, we have reached the "UG MAKE WHEEL" stage of nanotech-we can make a LOT of really interesting shapes (that in and of themselves have some impressive uses!), but we're still fiddling with "UG put stick THROUGH WHEEL. Make AXLE." step. Though in theory my thesis will help with that.

Also, if world-destroying omni-consuming nanites were a serious possibility, nature would have probably beaten us to the punch a loooooonnnng time ago.
 
2012-11-16 10:54:25 AM  
Hmmm, so I can use a desktop forge to create nanoware? Well hot damn, those nanites are way easier on Essence than other mods...
 
2012-11-16 11:00:17 AM  

Eskurido: Will they be distributed via egg salad sandwiches at truck-stops?


::Shakes fist::
 
2012-11-16 11:25:50 AM  
*summons QA*
 
2012-11-16 11:31:33 AM  

Grither: *summons QA*


Well, it's both life extension and 3-d printing!

But I admit I am skeptical about it, at least for now: These biobots are *HUGE*, by the sound of it ( a few milimeters!). But, I suppose one could make, like, artificial bloodworms or something? Instead of nanites, you get bioengineered parasites, instead!
 
2012-11-16 11:31:38 AM  

Grither: *summons QA*


This must be a paradox for him. On the one hand 3-D printing, on the other potential life-extending technology.
 
2012-11-16 11:32:17 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Can I print out a tiny Dennis Quaid?


No, but for some reason you can print a tiny Randy Quaid.
 
2012-11-16 11:33:55 AM  

Felgraf:
Also, if world-destroying omni-consuming nanites were a serious possibility, nature would have probably beaten us to the punch a loooooonnnng time ago.


Arent people just world-destroying, omni-consuming amalgamations of nanites?

Also, when is QA gonna read this and have his brain break?
 
2012-11-16 11:34:20 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: Grither: *summons QA*

This must be a paradox for him. On the one hand 3-D printing, on the other potential life-extending technology.


I'm sure he'll find a way to derp about it. Possibly it will be used to save or extend the life of a small child who will grow up to dream of exploring space, which would be a waste.
 
2012-11-16 11:42:09 AM  
This is set to become reality just as tourism to Mars is set to become reality.
 
2012-11-16 12:00:21 PM  
Let me hop on this bandwagon and throw my voice behind 3D printing myself a longer lifespan.

Preferably on a SpaceX tourist launch.
 
2012-11-16 12:04:23 PM  
So mind control ain't enough, they want to control my body on a cellular level. DAMN the Trilateral Commission!
 
2012-11-16 12:08:27 PM  
OH! Maybe transsexuals could make use of such tech to "fix" themselves on the inside too.
 
2012-11-16 12:20:23 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: SN1987a goes boom: Grither: *summons QA*

This must be a paradox for him. On the one hand 3-D printing, on the other potential life-extending technology.

I'm sure he'll find a way to derp about it. Possibly it will be used to save or extend the life of a small child who will grow up to dream of exploring space, which would be a waste.


Nah, he'll say something about atoms aging or some off the wall shiat. And point out that what TFA talks about is still years away.
 
2012-11-16 12:35:48 PM  
blastr.com

Quick!! Somebody print me up a 1966 version of Raquel Welch.
 
2012-11-16 12:48:11 PM  

StrikitRich: [blastr.com image 400x313]

Quick!! Somebody print me up a 1966 version of Raquel Welch.


It will probably come out looking like Donald Pleasance.
 
2012-11-16 01:22:21 PM  

StrikitRich: [blastr.com image 400x313]

Quick!! Somebody print me up a 1966 version of Raquel Welch.


No doubt. That and her appearance on that episode of Mork and Mindy, combined with 3 years of Lynda Carter running down airport tarmacs in an eagle gold bustier made me the man I am today.
 
2012-11-16 02:28:41 PM  

Felgraf: Also, if world-destroying omni-consuming nanites were a serious possibility, nature would have probably beaten us to the punch a loooooonnnng time ago.


Yeah, I was kind of joking, Dr. Crusher.
 
2012-11-16 03:03:32 PM  

Felgraf: Mugato: Was the SCARY tag turned into a mutant by nanites?

As someone who works in nanophysics, we are actually REALLY REALLY REALLY far from true nanites. We're still even having difficulty making complex nanostructures (That is, combining multiple nanoparticles of different shapes). The two methods have their pitfalls: Top-down lithographic design/creation is limited by the wavelength of the beam you use: You can only make stuff so small. Bottom up chemical assembly has STUPID amounts of error and things sticking where they shouldn't. For instance, if you wanted to make a barbel-shape, and stick two spheres to the end of a rod... you'd also get spheres sticking together, to the sides of rods, rods making daisy-chains or compacting against each other, etc.

Basically, we have reached the "UG MAKE WHEEL" stage of nanotech-we can make a LOT of really interesting shapes (that in and of themselves have some impressive uses!), but we're still fiddling with "UG put stick THROUGH WHEEL. Make AXLE." step. Though in theory my thesis will help with that.

Also, if world-destroying omni-consuming nanites were a serious possibility, nature would have probably beaten us to the punch a loooooonnnng time ago.


Honest question, as Ug progresses to making BMW's, is this a possible cure for cancer in the future?
 
2012-11-16 03:22:16 PM  
But what if terrorist hackers hijack my nanobots and hold my body hostage?
 
2012-11-16 03:32:40 PM  
Already we have turned all of our critical industries, all of our material resources, over to these...things...these lumps of silver and paste we call nanorobots. And now we propose to teach them intelligence? What, pray tell, will we do when these little homunculi awaken one day announce that they have no further need for us?
 
2012-11-16 03:35:20 PM  

sure haven't: Felgraf: Mugato: Was the SCARY tag turned into a mutant by nanites?

As someone who works in nanophysics, we are actually REALLY REALLY REALLY far from true nanites. We're still even having difficulty making complex nanostructures (That is, combining multiple nanoparticles of different shapes). The two methods have their pitfalls: Top-down lithographic design/creation is limited by the wavelength of the beam you use: You can only make stuff so small. Bottom up chemical assembly has STUPID amounts of error and things sticking where they shouldn't. For instance, if you wanted to make a barbel-shape, and stick two spheres to the end of a rod... you'd also get spheres sticking together, to the sides of rods, rods making daisy-chains or compacting against each other, etc.

Basically, we have reached the "UG MAKE WHEEL" stage of nanotech-we can make a LOT of really interesting shapes (that in and of themselves have some impressive uses!), but we're still fiddling with "UG put stick THROUGH WHEEL. Make AXLE." step. Though in theory my thesis will help with that.

Also, if world-destroying omni-consuming nanites were a serious possibility, nature would have probably beaten us to the punch a loooooonnnng time ago.

Honest question, as Ug progresses to making BMW's, is this a possible cure for cancer in the future?


I'm honestly not sure-this looks like it's more on the bio-end of things, which is a bit outside my field.

That said, even non-nanite nanotech actually have potential cancer treatment uses. Actually, something as simple as gold nanospheres (and, er, a laser) can be theoretically used for cancer treatment! It's really goddamn cool. I can elaborate if you want!

So yeah, nanotech will give us a lot more tools in the cancer-fighting toolbox. Maybe not a cure (since... well, it's hard to 'cure' "Your body is going bugfarknuts", but more ways to attack.)

Mugato: Felgraf: Also, if world-destroying omni-consuming nanites were a serious possibility, nature would have probably beaten us to the punch a loooooonnnng time ago.

Yeah, I was kind of joking, Dr. Crusher.


Not a Ph.D. yet, alas (two more years, I hope...) that said, I guess I tend to get overexcited/eager to talk about nanostuff. I suppose it's good that I'm doing research in a field that excites me, at least!
 
2012-11-16 03:39:16 PM  

UNC_Samurai: we call nanorobots. And now we propose to teach them intelligence? What, pray tell, will we do when these little homunculi awaken one day announce that they have no further need for us?


It's really eerie how prescient Alpha Centauri is/was, isn't it?
 
2012-11-16 04:04:53 PM  

Felgraf: something as simple as gold nanospheres (and, er, a laser) can be theoretically used for cancer treatment! It's really goddamn cool. I can elaborate if you want!

So yeah, nanotech will give us a lot more tools in the cancer-fighting toolbox. Maybe not a cure (since... well, it's hard to 'cure' "Your body is going bugfarknuts", but more ways to attack.)


Hmmm interesting. Please do elaborate, although you run the risk of talking outside my brain power lol.
 
2012-11-16 06:32:13 PM  

Felgraf: UNC_Samurai: we call nanorobots. And now we propose to teach them intelligence? What, pray tell, will we do when these little homunculi awaken one day announce that they have no further need for us?

It's really eerie how prescient Alpha Centauri is/was, isn't it?


I was able to troll a thread for hours last week posting nothing but SMAC quotes.
 
2012-11-17 01:54:13 PM  

PirateKing: StrikitRich: [blastr.com image 400x313]

Quick!! Somebody print me up a 1966 version of Raquel Welch.

It will probably come out looking like Donald Pleasance.


Or two Donald Pleasances? ;)
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report