
"Noocyte" Microrobot Can Work On A Single Cell 93
xemu writes: "This 670 m small robot designed to manipulate single cells inside your body reminds me of the noocytes in Blood Music by Greg Bear. Both the complete article from Science and an abstract are available online; the first link xemu points out has Quicktime videos of the beast in action, for those so equipped. According to the article, "[t]his microrobotic arm can pick up, lift, move, and place micrometer-size objects within an area of about 250 micrometers by 100 micrometers." That's small.
Re:the not-so-pretty side of this technology (Score:2)
--
Vote Homer Simpson for President!
The French invented the "meter" in 1793. (Score:1)
Most people consider July 4, 1776 to be the first date that the United States "existed".
You were about 17 years off, or so.
- Mike Hughes
Imaginary movie .... (Score:2)
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
Re:How does this have anything to do with noocytes (Score:1)
HAH! (Score:1)
This will change the future of medecine (Score:1)
Re:Utterly frightening (Score:1)
Re:Utterly frightening (Score:1)
Re:Actually, disease _could_ become resistant to n (Score:3)
This is why some GI problems and yeast infections are better treated with yoghurt than anti-biotics/anti-fungals.
Re:ahah! (Score:1)
Re:Utterly frightening (Score:1)
This would be to the scalpel, what the scalpel is to using leeches. It's just an advancement in the tools, it has nothing to do with our humanity except to help us live longer.
Evils of Technology?? (Score:1)
This sort of unwarranted fear of technology has resulted in Big Brother type intrusions into our lives. Just look at Carnivore. "If PC's fall into the wrong hands, some truly evil dude could destroy the world with one." Well... so far, we're all still around. Here, most of us are concerned as ever that we maintain free usage of our machines and freedom to mess with all sorts of techie stuff.
Like they say, knowledge is inherently neither good nor bad. It's the use of technology that defines its nature.
Hey, wait a minute (Score:2)
I'm getting tired of hearing every religious wacko called 'right-wing'. The loony liberal left (how do ya like it when you're labeled, politico-bigots?) has plenty of religious nutlogs as well, among them Joe Lieberman, Louis Farrakan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. Just being a God zealot doesn't automatically qualify you for membership in the Republican Party.
Borg (Score:1)
Re:Actually, disease _could_ become resistant to n (Score:1)
Re:Utterly frightening (Score:1)
Elgon
Re:Moderators: This isn't funny, this guy is serio (Score:1)
(OTOH I would defend to the death his absolute right to spiel whatever liberal horseshit he wishes.)
'Liberalism - You can do anything you like as long as we agree with it.'
Elgon
Re: (DONT) fuck the metric system (Score:1)
OTOH for just about anything else (barring spectroscopy in chemistry I admit) the good old metric system kicks butt.
Elgon
Re:batteries? why? (Score:1)
Elgon
Re:its "VIRUSES" you pretentious fucker (Score:1)
virus -i n slime; poison; pungency; saltiness.
So there.
Read this (Score:1)
-
Re:I wonder if we will soon see.. (Score:1)
And if those Jack 'n the Boxes keep popping up on every corner down here in the South, there will be plenty arteries to clear...
-Antipop
$5 To Read an Article? (Score:2)
-Waldo
Re:How does this have anything to do with noocytes (Score:1)
I know sometimes I would :)
Re:Am I the only person... (Score:1)
Re:Utterly frightening (Score:1)
Actually, disease _could_ become resistant to nano (Score:5)
In short, no matter what kind of attack you think of -- whether "chemical" or "physical" or "nano" or psionic (and at the nano level, they're sort of similar, except for maybe psionic) -- chances are, there's some variant of the organism that's resistant. When used massively on the organism, soon only the resistant variant is left. Then the attack is less effective...
Sometimes I wonder if using the attack actually makes things worse by the following mechanism in addition to the above selection: Presumably, a variant organism and a "standard" organism compete for resources in an environment. Thus the standard
organism keeps resources from the variant that it would otherwise have. So the standard organism actaully inhibits the spread of the variant (not to mention providing something for immune systems to cut their teeth on). Remove the standard organism, and the stronger variant has less competition....
Re:I wonder if we will soon see.. (Score:2)
Did anyone else think of MST3k's nanites when they read this? The little buggers'd probably be consulting their union shop steward before agreeing to embark on such a large-scale industrial project.. Probably involves overtime, particularly on an American...
I miss MST..
Your Working Boy,
let's hope... (Score:2)
Oh NO!!! The Blue Face of DEATH!!
Re:PDF Version of the Paper.... (Score:1)
Re:Utterly frightening (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot and biology (Score:3)
Re:Utterly frightening (Score:1)
Moderators: This isn't funny, this guy is serious! (Score:1)
When I read this, I thought Emmerson was the best troll ever on slashdot, and in the top ten on Usenet. I was so amazed at how articulate this guy was, I wanted to see some of his other art, so I checked his history. Consider:
If this guy really is a troll, then he is the best troll ever in the history of Usenet, all bbs's, fidonet, arpanet, and all other such mediums!. Think about it, is it more likely that this guy is a genious with nothing better to do than troll Slashdot, or that he is really what he looks like: a psychopathic right-winged extremist?
I don't really find this guy funny.
Some clear sci fi forcasting on Nano technology (Score:2)
Re:Imaginary movie ....(Fantastic Voyage) (Score:1)
I wonder if we will soon see.. (Score:4)
Re:Utterly frightening (Score:1)
Re:Whoa, lots of fancy words (Score:1)
Re:batteries? why? (Score:1)
Sure, you could do it. But if you've got the machinery to be continually synthesizing and maintaining a tubular network, plus the machinery to turn glucose into ATP for the motors, you're getting damn close to being a muscle cell. Seems to me you'd be better off skipping the robot arms, engineering an antigen-based targeting system for whatever you want to kill, and packing the whole thing up into a little proliferating purely biological bundle of joy. (This is, IMHO, why we may never see nanites at all --- it may turn out to be always easier to just design a bacterium.)
Noocyte" Microrobot Can Work On A Single Cell (Score:1)
Robot registration, please (Score:1)
Re:New name for nanobots (Score:1)
Volunteers? (Score:2)
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Am I the only person... (Score:1)
designed to manipulate single cells inside your body
The potential for either malicious use or unanticipated disaster is HUGE here! What steps are being taken to ensure that this doesn't turn in some kind of Frankenstein disaster?
And don't tell me it can't. We've got kudzu in the S. US, rabbits in Australia, and Dutch Elm disease in the N.E. US just to mention a few examples of carelessly poking around with biological systems.
NanoVideo (Score:4)
The first 1x1 pixel Quicktime videos...
Re:Noocyte" Microrobot Can Work On A Single Cell (Score:1)
I'd better drink a service pack.
Re: Homeworld: Cataclysm - a sense of perspective. (Score:1)
There's this little thing called entropy. Your nanowhatsises that are busily trying to reconfigure large quantities of molecular bonds in bulk: where do they get the energy to do so? If they're something capable of using the energy available in your body (metabolize sugars, etc), they're almost certainly something our immune system is designed to attack.
Even if they can get over the energy, thing, they're not going to be able to act TOO much faster than the reactions we're used to. The inherent chaos in the system (brownian motion) means molecules are whipping by darn fast, and everything at that level is twisting and jiggling. Standard reactions just grab and hold something and wait for the appropriate molecule to wander by and stick. They work because there's zillions of molecules wandering by, and if the reaction's to have any chance of working there's zillions of the appropriate type. When the right one hits, it sticks, and the various vaguely ionic attraction/repulsion forces (think magnetism, static cling, and the kind of constant vibration that turns sand into quicksand, all rolled into one) the molecule twists into a new shape (still twisting and bending and wobbling and jiggling, it just now spends the majority of its time in the new shape) and the reaction proceeds to the next step.
The reactions that ARE capable of proceeding rapidly aren't the kind that create more order. They create more DISORDER. Set fire to something. Dip it in acid. Blow it up. It's easy to rearrange molecular structure real fast, but the end result is scattered gasses and buckets of waste heat. Increasing order is a PAINFUL uphill climb, that's very slow and consumes a lot of energy.
We've had four and a half billion years of evolution fighting on this point. If there was a better way to do it that didn't have DARN obvious down sides, it would be the way it was done everywhere. Anything capable of taking over the planet in a week or two would have already DONE it at some point over the past few billions years.
There's a bunch of fun reactions we can't use locally. All sorts of exotic compounds that j ust so happen to explode on contact with water or oxidize amost immediately in our remarkably corrosive atmosphere. (Memo: rust ain't normal elsewhere in the universe. The life on this planet made the atmosphere that way a billion or so years after the fact (in part to kill off competing microorganisms that were poisoned by excess oxygen because their guts essentially rusted), and anything from elsewhere that was NOT used to a 20% oxygen atmosphere (where self-sustaining exothermic reactions can be set in motion and just continue! I.E. fire.)... It probably wouldn't live very long.)
I'm not TOO worried about this. :)
Rob
the not-so-pretty side of this technology (Score:5)
--
Re:Volunteers? (Score:2)
-Nev
Utterly frightening (Score:3)
I'm horrified by the thought that life can be treated as some sort of vile mechanical process rather than the sacred and beautiful thing it is. I'm all for the curing of diseases, but modern medicine is going too far with this. I'm worried that in several years, humanity will be replaced with robotic drones who serve no purpose other than to work and perform. And we're throwing praise and money into this abomination?
Were it not expressly forbidden by the 6th commandmant, I would rather take my life than live in such a horrendously blasphemous society.
Nanopoker Funkadelic? (Score:1)
Does this mean the ability to alter card markings undetectably? Or would these teeny robots only work if water were "accidentally" spilled onto the cards? What about hard liquor?
Re:OFFTOPIC: Doubleclick ads, webbugs, on Slashdot (Score:2)
Whoa, lots of fancy words (Score:2)
I'm pretty knowledgeable in the ways of science (what also floats? A duck!), but even I had problems reading this one. So, raise your hands, who really understood all of this one? Actually I read Science on a regular basis but usually skip over stuff that make my head hurt.
Still, this is a pretty cool device.
Re:the not-so-pretty side of this technology (Score:1)
This might be even more useful someday. (Score:1)
Cool. Maybe an even smaller version can cheat lithography and fix the many circuitry bugs within the AMD Athlon Processor. Sure, people will say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Reality check: all of AMD's processors are broken. The proof is in their 92.816% x86 compatibility.
Re:fuck the metric system (Score:1)
Sounds perfect for the RIAA and MPAA (Score:4)
Now if I'm hearing or looking at any "unlicensed" content, I simply will not be able to interact with it. If I don't agree to be implanted with their robots, all I will see of their works is gibberish.
Crap. I forgot to renew my subscription to "The Outside World(tm)." I stepped outside to enter my car and suddenly went blind. Guess I'll have to call in sick to work today...
Not much to be afraid of (Score:3)
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Re:batteries? why? (Score:1)
There *is* another option I forgot, though... have them feed off the blood glucose or better yet, from the stuff they're destroying. Of course, the efficiency of taking chemical energy and turning that into electrical energy and turning that into mechanical energy is really poor. However, that might actually be beneficial --- most patients could stand to be using their energy reserves less efficiently.
Re:What's with the pay site!!! (Score:1)
--
Re:OFFTOPIC: Doubleclick ads, webbugs, on Slashdot (Score:2)
--
Re:Utterly frightening (Score:1)
Learning to understand and manipulate cells is an abomination?
With that thinking, so is, say, a lifesaving heart bypass, or even using a condom, because using our knowledge to manipulate life is Bad(tm).
> Not only must human life be reduced to such a tiny level
Because life kinda exists at such a tiny level; you'd prefer ignorance? You think it best to ignore reality and go about our lives like good [insert whatever religion you are]?
Way to waste your (God given?) gifts.
> we must also find ways to modify with the very seeds of humanity?
IMO, it's more evil to waste our knowlege and abilities than it is to explore them; would you rather we just let people die needlessly, when the technology exists to help them? Causing death by inaction.. that's paramount to murder (or in the timescales of the life of a species, mass-murder. Oops).
> What's next, a device which can transcend earthly existance and modify the human soul? Are we so vain?
Seeing as the soul is merely a concept in people's minds; a meme, if you will, I don't see this being likely. TBH, if you think we're inherintly "better" than everything else because of some utterly abstract nonsense like a god given soul, you're the vain one. (not to say I don't value human life; I don't need the idea of a human soul to do that when it has intrinsic value)
> I'm horrified by the thought that life can be treated as some sort of vile mechanical process
Why "vile"? What makes you think life is any more than a complex reproducing machine, forged through billions of years of evolution (bet you hate that too)? Why does the idea that the Universe can create complex life like without a plan, or a creator disturb you? We're certainly not well designed.. more a massive kludge.
That doesn't make it any less incredible, or wonderful, unless you're an ignorant fool.
> rather than the sacred and beautiful thing it is.
Knowing how a sunset produces all those wonderful colours doesn't make it any less beautiful. In fact, knowing how such complexity and beauity can arise naturally makes it even more wonderful. As it is with many things.
> I'm all for the curing of diseases
In what way is this any less meddling than cellular level manipulation? Or using a condom? Or trying not to be hit by a bus when you cross the road? Would you rather sit back and die, or become ill, when there's a chance to avert it?
Do you cross the road, or drive with your eyes closed so you don't interfere with life, and God's plan by inadvertantly not mowing someone down, or being mown down yourself? Or do you think our abilities are ok dealing with things like that, but nothing more complex that is, yet, reached within a couple of centuries of rapid development at the very start of the technological era of our species?
> I'm worried that in several years, humanity will be replaced with robotic drones who serve no purpose other than to work and perform
More like freed to do things it's good at, and enjoys. Wasting a human with a nasty repetative job when a machine can do it better is a bit evil, concidering the worth of the human who could be doing better things. As our technology becomes better supportive, this is what will result; people freed to live their lives.
> And we're throwing praise and money into this abomination
Don't get me started about throwing praise and money into a religion that.. no, let's just not.
> Were it not expressly forbidden by the 6th commandmant, I would rather take my life than live in such a horrendously blasphemous society.
You realise, of course, that not everybody wants to follow your religion, or a religion? You, of *course*, respect peoples right to make their own choices and believe in whatever they want to?
Seemingly, you don't; I noticed your use of the word "Godless" in a post about the third world, which I take as something of an insult, seeing as I'm also "Godless"; that doesn't make me respect life any less, nor does it take the wonder out of life.
If you're so narrow minded to think it does, you're obviously not well educated enough to really understand what makes it so wonderful.
(Oh, and guys, I don't think this is a traditional troll, unless you count differing opinions as trolls, which isn't very P.C., now, is it? Maybe he's an idiot with awful opinions, but that doesn't really make him a troll, does it?)
Homeworld: Cataclysm (Score:2)
[OT]Somebody Fix the Screwey HTML in this story!!! (Score:1)
If you're not wasted, the day is.
PLEASE correct that HTML! (Score:1)
The I-tags are the wrong way around! At least on my Netscape Communicator 4.7 it shows the whole rest of the page in italics, underlined and in the same color as links (ie. looks like one looong link)! (OK, it seems like a but in netscape, but still could it be corrected....)
The effect of which is like having your brain smashed out with a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick.
--Douglas Adams, HHGTTG
Re:batteries? why? (Score:1)
Sounds like you know your stuff - in some ways an engineered bacterium or virus is a nanite!
Elgon
Re:OFFTOPIC: Doubleclick ads, webbugs, on Slashdot (Score:2)
Re:I wonder if we will soon see.. (Score:1)
I guess that some damage could happen if the laser was too powerful..
Finally! A working link to the article! (Score:1)
Re:Actually, disease _could_ become resistant to n (Score:1)
Re:batteries? why? (Score:1)
Anyway, you're absolutely right, a bacterium or virus is a nanite. OTOH (and IMHO), it's not what people are thinking of when they think of nanites --- they're thinking of things that are basically a robot made really small.
Actually, I need to revise my prior statement again. If we can actually make them, there may indeed be a role for mostly-nonbiological nanites. Since most biological stuff is really working on a statistical basis, it always gets a few false positives and negatives. There might be tasks (not medical so much, but perhaps industrial) where absolute 100% precision is required, and then you might need the digital paradigm. Maybe. I can't think of such an application offhand (even an advanced material can be made to self-assemble if you're clever), but I'm a lousy futurist.
S/N Ratio (Offtopic and I know it) (Score:1)
What's with the pay site!!! (Score:1)
Re:Utterly frightening (Score:1)
I think you need to ask the lord for a little guidance, because a hateful heart will get you nowhere near heaven my friend, but instead make your life hell on earth. I actually consider myself a very moral person, and its your kind of glassy eyed worshipping a wrathful god types that give rational religious people a bad name.
By the way, I hate it when "Christians" quote the Old Testement. The old testament covers the covenant made with Jews. This includes the 10 commandments. Those who believe in Christ are covered under the New Covenant, which can be summed up with John 3:16 if you are so inclined. Adhering to the New Covenant as I do, I can easily say the word "FUCK" and feel no remorse, if I feel that I'm using it at an appropriate time. (Which I'll admit is almost all the time) Not only with I be forgiven, but also, I don't even think it matters what is said, but only what is meant. Intent is always worse than the words used to express it.
I wonder if you do respect the words of "Our Lord", or merely find them convenient when you want to make attacks on people.
May the lord bless you and keep you, unless you are really the asshole you pretend to be.
-Mecha
Re:Am I the only person... (Score:1)
Inside the body? Not anytime soon. (Score:5)
Still pretty neat, though. My lab does MEMS work, but we don't have the lithography capabilities to build something like this.
PDF Version of the Paper.... (Score:3)
- El Nino
Re:Volunteers? (Score:1)
Well it doesn't have to be accepted by everyone. If it will help me, I'll take it; I'm sure they'll get enough other takers to make it worthwhile to develop.
--
Small? (Score:3)
It's visible with naked eye. It's not
autonomous/programmable, and has no
built in power source. It is not useful
as is.
Real stuff is decades away, if feasible at
all. Take grand words like nanotech
with a bag of salt.
Re:the not-so-pretty side of this technology (Score:2)
Well, in a capitalist society such as ours, that's not quite the case. If a new robot is introduced that can let one man do the work of 10, it would be great if the other nine could just kick back, take a break, tinker with some electronics (if that's their thing), and 'enhance their mentality'. But instead, they're going to be fired.
Robots may be able to replace the factory worker in performing repetitious labor, but the only people they "free" are the factory owners who don't have to pay human labor anymore.
Re:Volunteers? (Score:1)
Think Kosovo for a recent example.
Re:I wonder if we will soon see.. (Score:2)
Re:Volunteers? (Score:1)
Re:Actually, disease _could_ become resistant to n (Score:2)
It is -misuse- of a technique that is the problem. This provides unnecessary selection pressure towards the variant you can do nothing about, which is why there is a big stink about overperscription of antibiotics and what have you.
Re:the not-so-pretty side of this technology (Score:2)
it would be great if the [people replaced by robots] could just kick back... but instead, they're going to be fired.
Well, you're both right - it's just that those people whose jobs are replaced by robots don't necessarily get new jobs right away. Perhaps some of them can get jobs at the robot factories, building robots. Or they can be robot repairmen. I doubt they build and fix themselves yet.
It's similar with computers - since their introduction, they have created entirely new industries. I venture to guess that most of us reading slashdot have jobs that didn't really exist in these numbers 15 or 20 years ago.
Our species evolves, but its your choice (Score:2)
It is of course your choice not to take part in this science-driven future of our own making, but I have no idea how you could possibly avoid it: almost everything you wear, eat, touch and see around you in daily life is a product of technology (unless you grow your own vegetables, peel them with a flint knife and eat them raw), so if you are sincere you will need to travel to one of the few untouched parts of the planet, throw away all your man-made cloths and implements, and go back to extreme basics and a life on the edge of existence. I doubt that you would succeed in your quest though; even the most primitive groupings of people use modern technology these days. You'd have to be a hermit as well.
On the other hand, you may be happy with modern life up to now and just consider these latest advances as one step too far. Well, in that case you're just a blinkered Luddite and I have no sympathy for you.
New name for nanobots (Score:2)
OFFTOPIC: Doubleclick ads, webbugs, on Slashdot (Score:1)
<A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N668.SlashDot /B20201;sz=468x60;ord=969347632969347632 ?">
<IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N668.SlashDot/B2 0201;sz=468x60;ord=969347632969347632?" BORDER=0
WIDTH=468 HEIGHT=60 ALT="Fast. Native. XML. Click. Software AG."></A>
It seems to be somewhat random, intertwined with their own ads, but it's there. Just reload a page a few times and watch your proxy logs.
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC slashdot.org/x 60;ord=969347632969347632? crunch!9 347632617 crunch!7 632617 crunch!3 2677 crunch!3 2697 crunch!
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N668.SlashDot/B20201;sz=468
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC images2.slashdot.org/Slashdot/pc.gif?/index.pl,96
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC images.slashdot.org/pagecount.gif?/index.pl,96934
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC images.slashdot.org/banner/swag5001en.gif?9693476
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC images.slashdot.org/banner/swag5004en.gif?9693476
All those web bugs, too...
(Yes, I'm using NT. Shoot me.)
--
Re:ahah! (Score:2)
Oh my god emerson! Did you eat dinner tooday!? Holy shit you were "modifing with the very seeds of humanity" by altering their glucose content. You'll surely suffer eternal damnation for this abomination of tinkering with life's sacred inner workings!
Utterly Brightening (Score:1)
I'm worried that in several years, humanity will be replaced with robotic drones who serve no purpose other than to work and perform.
And in what way is this different from how most modern corporations now treat their employees?
Personally, I'd be glad to see myself replaced with a robotic drone that served no purpose other than to do all my work for me while I lounged in an easy chair watching the latest episode of "Battle Robots Meet Crazy Machines".
How does this have anything to do with noocytes? (Score:3)
The noocytes in Blood Music were self-contained computers designed to mimic white blood cells, who could network together and create a very powerful (sentient, in the story) computer.
How do the two have anything to do with one another? I'm confused. Or was the Blood Music reference just name-dropping in an attempt to get the story accepted?