Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology Science

China Plans to Surpass the U.S. in Nanotech Development 282

Posted by Soulskill from the don't-let-them-have-wil-wheaton dept.
SoyChemist writes "Sociologists at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting have reported that China is making major investments in nanotechnology. Their aim is to 'leapfrog' past the United States in technological development by focusing on long-ranging scientific goals. So far, the Chinese government has poured about $400 million into the young field of research. Considering the low cost of equipment and labor over there, that is a very large sum of money, and China's investment is expected to 'rise considerably.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Plans to Surpass the U.S. in Nanotech Development More

China Plans to Surpass the U.S. in Nanotech Development

Comments Filter:

  • Unfortunately, (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wcpalmer ( 1232598 )
    I see this being a place where the US will always lag behind due to conservative Christianity and the whole "don't play God" thing.

    Not trying to troll, but this sort of research and development is going to happen regardless. Other countries will take up the slack and fill any gap we do not.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by taupin ( 1047372 )
      If the Chinese government actually does put its weight behind this plan, I don't see that there's much the U.S. can do : China has the advantage of much cheaper labor, equipment, and so on and so forth, in addition to an extremely powerful, centralized government that is not at all afraid to use that power.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @02:40AM (#22460216)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • USA has no national goals (Score:5, Insightful)

          by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @03:18AM (#22460424)
          USA made great strides during the 1960s because the whole space thing was seen as a national goal with everyone onboard. Getting there was a national priority, above just any individual company's priority. That has ceased to be. Sure there were some Lockheed vs Boeing etc spats, but nothing like the inter-corporate fights of today. Major tech companies now just spend more time body-slamming each other.

          USA lacks national technological goals now and no matter how bright the minds, if they don't have a supporting environment then they will not reach their potential.

          China is working as a nation whiich means they will get further with what they have.

          Money and equipment don't make for winning. Here's the story of the 1996 Americas Cup: The US team had the might of Boeing (Crays etc) and fleets of white coats to do their math modelling etc. The kiwis had a corner in their warehouse with a couple of SGI workstations. The kiwis achieved more with their math modelling because the math guy was onsite and slept on the floor next to his computers. They used what equipment they had with maximum effectiveness.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by guacamole rocks ( 852372 )
            Exactly... this is called QinLaoZhiFu, which means "Industrious Wealth". It is a cultural phrase in China that many parents teach their children. They believe that working very hard is rewarded... and this is a national concept.

            [responding to an earlier comment about China's inability to innovate] Interestingly, a Communist society where national values are promoted by the central party has a stronger work-ethic and sense of teamwork than this country walking around the world insisting that everyone must
          • That sounds a bit contradictory to your first argument - arguable one guy with a bright mind and some decent equipment beat out a whole bunch of guys who had a better environment. No doubt national interest will affect funding, but it isn't *always* about the money..

        • Re:Unfortunately, (Score:5, Funny)

          by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @03:25AM (#22460456) Journal

          Nano Tech will require bright minds and very highend industrial technology. Currently, the US leads China in both fields.
          First: I don't think I know a single person in the fields of math or science who hasn't had a professor from China. If they're good enough to teach you, in your country, they've probably got a few left over for their own industry at home.

          Second: How much high end equipment does the USA import from China?
          And you're trying to suggest they don't have industrial technology?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by lee1026 ( 876806 )
            Assuming, of course, that the US simply don't just hire away all of their best and brightest, like it have been for a long time now. How do you think those professors got here in the first place?

            • Re:Unfortunately, (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @08:58AM (#22462362)

              Assuming, of course, that the US simply don't just hire away all of their best and brightest, like it have been for a long time now.

              We've been able to do that because all the money was over here. However, between trade deficits and government borrowing, we've been working really hard on sending that money over to China lately. So before long it may not make much sense for their best and brightest to come over here when they can get paid with US cash right in their own hometowns.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Capitalist1 ( 127579 )
            The problem is that they have *everyone else's* advanced technology and manufacturing plants, and those teachers who are so hot in their fields are *here*, not there. China's political system, and at root its culture, is the real barrier to their ability to become an economic powerhouse. Socialism doesn't work in the real world. It just doesn't. They've lived under it for the last 40-50 years, and it will take an equivalent of the Enlightenment for them to overcome the damage that has done to them.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by HiThere ( 15173 )
              Socialism works just fine in the real world. Communism doesn't scale, but it works "ok" at a local level. (Nobody's been fool enough to try it on a national level.)

              China is historically more capitalist than the US has ever been. There was a brief pause after the trauma of the Japanese invasion when Mao took over, but it seems to me that they're heading back to more normal times. (Of course, for China normal times means "We are the only important country. Everyone outside is a barbarian." And it includ

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Trogre ( 513942 )
          I don't know, but I still find this funny:

          "
          Designed by Apple in California
          Made in China
          "

        • National Chauvinism? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Geezle2 ( 541502 )
          Since when does developing nano technology require brute force cheap labor and low tech equipment?

          Nano Tech will require bright minds and very highend industrial technology. Currently, the US leads China in both fields.

          The problem with the "bright minds" that the US leads with is that America doesn't really produce them domestically any more. The US imports most of its bright minds nowadays and from where is it getting a lot of them? China.

          Sure, some of those bright minds stay in America after they a

        • Re:Unfortunately, (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mrbluze ( 1034940 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @05:04AM (#22460924) Journal

          Currently, the US leads China in both fields.
          But China needn't fear, as the US is doing everything it can from its side to reverse the situation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kahei ( 466208 )

          Currently, the US imports from China in both fields. I'm sure China doesn't export EVERYTHING.

          I will admit that the US and Japan did lead China in high-end industrial and scientific machinery until very recently, and the US and Japan between them did 99% of the research in areas such as high-speed turbines and whatnot. But since all that stuff was basically shipped to China in the 90s in exchange for cash, the playing field is level again.

        • Nano Tech will require bright minds and very highend industrial technology. Currently, the US leads China in both fields.

          Surely the vast difference in numbers mean china is almost certain to have more bright minds than the usa.

          China is in a better position to ensure the brightest minds get developed to their full potential, they will be state funded and they will go to the best universities, even if they happen to be american universities.

          As for highend industrial technology, where is this technology being manufactured ... yes china pretty much along with korea and other Asian country's.

          Some of america's brightest minds may

        • Nano Tech will require bright minds and very highend industrial technology. Currently, the US leads China in both fields. Currently most of the bright minds in the US seem to be Chinese. They average literate Chinese person is typically better at maths than the average westerner because the higher level of abstraction required to learn written Chinese effectively prepares them for the abstract study of mathematics.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dwater ( 72834 )
          in my experience, high tech equipment isn't cheap in china; it's slightly more expensive than in the US.

          Of course, I don't have much idea about the equipment used in nano-tech.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kcelery ( 410487 )
          yes, the workers should be paid by nano-dollar.

      • I think it's more akin to pouring water into sand to build a pool.

        China does not have a research base and trying to "leapfrog" without a base makes no sense. (research base in terms of university research structure and the experts)

        NSF gets $6-7 billion a year. What is $400 million spread over 5 years.

        • Good point. I've read a lot of research papers coming out of China and it is very much the "throw a lot of sh*t at the wall and see what sticks." Of course they do have some good research coming out of their facilities, but you're right about the lack of a good base seriously hampering the quality of their output.

      • Re:Unfortunately, (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @03:08AM (#22460376)
        I don't know if the equipment is much cheaper. A lot of precision scientific equipment comes from Germany, Japan and America still -- which China does not make (yet).

        What scares people about China is not that it is getting ahead but that we're open to their citizens but they are not really open to us (for instance, no foreign companies can have more than 49% ownership in a domestic company over there).

        In some ways, other than the cheap doo-dads, it seems like a one sided relationship and that in the long term only China will benefit from it.

        In the end, all great countries have declined. This has happened to China as well in the past. From what I see in history, it's usually when a people, as a whole, want to live for today with no thought of tomorrow.

        It can be achieved by living off the riches of their past instead of working/producing themselves which got their predecessors to where they were. It's seen in our media companies who can't bear the thought of letting go of old systems or even 80 year old cartoons (Steamboat Willy), songs, etcetera. It's seen in many rich families too - the 1st generation works hard and brings in the billions, the second generation generally doesn't have to work quite as hard but enough to keep the empire afloat, and the 3rd generation tends to squander the luxury they grew up with. You can see the same trend in successful immigrant families as well.

        Nationwide -- just look at the deficits being run up this year (3 trillion dollar budget!) -- the politicians are directly mortgaging our and our children's future for some frivolous spending today -- and there will be consequences even though they seem distant -- extremely high taxes or high inflation wiping out the middle class.

        America isn't falling behind because of China's size. Switzerland never really looked America enviously and wistfully wondered if only they had our size and population, what great things they could achieve technologically - they are the leaders in many technological areas of the world. And China only surpassed Germany as top exporter recently even though Germany has less than 1/15 the population.

        http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/11/23/wto.germany.role/index.html [cnn.com]

        It's generally in the attitude of the leaders and people as a whole. Not the size of the country.

        • Open to foreigners? (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Geezle2 ( 541502 )

          What scares people about China is not that it is getting ahead but that we're open to their citizens but they are not really open to us (for instance, no foreign companies can have more than 49% ownership in a domestic company over there).

          This is no different from Japan, the US's chief ally in the region. Why should China let potentially hostile entities own controlling interest in facilities that may have strategic importance for their entire nation? To be honest, it would be really dumb.

          Socially, the Chinese are MUCH friendlier and more 'open' to foreigners than are the Japanese. In none of my time in China was I ever made to feel unwelcome, yet it doesn't take long to see through the artificial politeness of the Japanese and start seei

          • Why should China let potentially hostile entities own controlling interest in facilities that may have strategic importance for their entire nation?


            Not that I disagree with you, that many countries in the West have allowed this to happen numerous times.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by kamapuaa ( 555446 )
          (for instance, no foreign companies can have more than 49% ownership in a domestic company over there).

          This is not true. Foreign companies may own 100% of Chinese companies. Foreigners may operate businesses in China. In industries considered vital to the nation, foreign ownership is limited - for instance banking, oil, transportation, telecommunication. The US, which has the world's most liberal policies in terms of foreign ownership, has similar limits in place, and in the case of banking, China's po

          • Switzerland never really looked America enviously - they are the leaders in many technological areas of the world

            No they aren't.


            Oh really, come on now; Cuckoo Clocks have never been so vital to the worlds success and no one can make them like the Swiss.

        • What scares people about China is not that it is getting ahead but that we're open to their citizens but they are not really open to us (for instance, no foreign companies can have more than 49% ownership in a domestic company over there).
          America doesn't seem very open to people buying their ports or media companies. Or other countries' steel...

        • Open? I don't think so (Score:4, Informative)

          by querist ( 97166 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @11:29AM (#22464168) Homepage
          Quoth the poster "What scares people about China is not that it is getting ahead but that we're open to their citizens but they are not really open to us"

          I must disagree. I've been to China, and I'm going back soon. It was _very_ easy to obtain a visa as an American citizen.

          I have a very dear friend in China who wanted to come here. She could not obtain a visa - a tourist visa - to visit the USA. The requirements and the questions asked are amazingly intrusive. It is very difficult for a citizen of the PRC to obtain a tourist visa to come to the USA.
      • I see the Chinese government as actually a huge hurdle to research. They are walking a fine line right now. The free thinking required in research is the same free thinking that makes people not want to be controlled by their government. Eventually China is going to reach a crossroads where the government will have to become more democratic (at least less hands on) or we'll end up with another Tiananmen Square.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by iNaya ( 1049686 )
      I wouldn't say that at all. The United States puts more money into nanotechnology investment [news.com] in the world. Per capita, the leader is Taiwan. This was at least true in 2004, where the federal government invested $1.6 billion, and the private sector about $1.7 billion, more than half of world wide private investment in nano-tech. I'm guessing now: but, I'd say that the funding from both sectors has probably increased significantly since then.

    • totally ignorant (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Quadraginta ( 902985 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @03:11AM (#22460396)
      As someone who has actually worked with academics and entrepreneurs in this field, I call bullshit on this. No professional scientist or engineer I've met has spent a moment's thought on what any putative "don't play God" faction thinks, or even thinks he needs to. There's zero evidence that any such faction, should it even exist outside of your imagination, has ever had any significant effect on technological advancement in this country.

      Furthermore, my experience suggests that the Chinese have a much more substantial and real cultural barrier to any kind of technological progress (which is, I think, one reason why a society civilized a thousand years before the West, and having had a far larger population for far longer, has nevertheless consistently lagged behind the West in terms of invention and innovation, at least on a per capita basis).

      The problem is that the Confucian tradition strongly reinforcea an acceptance of existing heirarchy, and of paying the utmost respect to your elders and those better educated and more experienced than yourself. This is antithetical to innovation and invention. The only way you can invent something new is by doing something that older and wiser heads think is foolish. (If they didn't think it was dumb, they'd have done it themselves already.)

      Consequently true innovation happens only in a culture that does not value established wisdom too much, which is willing to take some chances on a young, hot-headed, crazy contrarian way of thinking. China has a long and strong cultural tradition of valuing established wisdom, and I think that is a much more significant cultural barrier to innovation than any silly Chicken-Little faddish fear that evangelicals are going to rise up and smite researchers working on nanoscopic gears and motors because the latter weren't described in the Bible.

      • talk about bs... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by djupedal ( 584558 )
        "has nevertheless consistently lagged behind the West in terms of invention and innovation

        Let's see - China had the sundial, sextant, gunpowder and circumnavigation of the planet under their belt long before the west stopped playing with dolls and you make a claim like that?

        They were tossed back to the stone age during world war two, courtesy the Japanese, and basically left to rot by the West - they are just now regaining technical traction. The Chinese used to lead the planet in terms of innovation

        • China had the sundial, sextant, gunpowder and circumnavigation of the planet under their belt
          Also woodblock and movable type printing.

        • They will leapfrog the industrial revolution and plow headlong directly into the technological revolution while the rest of the world sits and watches.

          Leapfrog the industrial revolution? China is in the middle of an industrial revolution!

          World sitting and watching? I don't think they'll be watching China. Oprah maybe, but not China.

        • talk about revising history. (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "Let's see - China had the sundial, sextant, gunpowder and circumnavigation of the planet under their belt long before the west stopped playing with dolls and you make a claim like that? "

          Islam had the astrolab [wikipedia.org]

          Islam had sundials. [wikipedia.org]

          Islam was circumnavigating the world. [rferl.org]

          Islam had explosive gunpowder. [wikipedia.org]

          • Re:talk about revising history. (Score:5, Funny)

            by mrbluze ( 1034940 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @05:51AM (#22461186) Journal
            That settles it. I'm moving my business to Islam. Is the weather good there? How are the schools and will my wife enjoy the shopping?

          • Re:talk about revising history. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @09:16AM (#22462550) Homepage Journal
            Islam was taken over by its own fundamentalists, too.

            We're following steps they have trod, about a thousand years later, with our Christian Fundamentalists.

            But I still don't see China stepping into the leadership role, the way they're planning. Look at my .sig, China wants the trappings of science, the technology. To really have the science, you need freedom of thought. The real question about China is whether they will grant sufficient freedom of thought for scientific leadership, and then find that they can't cram the genie back into the bottle.

            Back before the Iraq war, I suggested that Saddam had "his most loyal scientists" working feverishly on WMD. Had he had "his best scientists" working on them, they might have achieved something. I see something of the same quandary for China, as long as the Party insists on retaining absolute political power.

        • Corrections (Score:5, Informative)

          by kahei ( 466208 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @05:57AM (#22461228) Homepage
          Sextants are derived from quadrants and astrolables, both Arab inventions.
          Sundials were used by the ancient Egyptians and it's rather unlikely they got them from China -- it's probably something that's been invented many times in many places.
          'Circumnavigation' appears to be an idea from Gavin Menzies' book and has little scholarly support (probably lots of *political* support) even in China and nothing resembling actual evidence, although like the Da Vinci Code it's probably going to be remembered as real history by hordes of idiots.

          Manchu China was technologically and politically stagnant for a LONG time before the Japanese arrived, and Ming China had been technologically and politically stagnant for an even longer time before that, which is how the Manchurians were able to conquer China in the first place.

          HTH

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          If the Chinese led the world once in innovation, it was a long time ago.

          The modern world's scientific achievements are mostly the product of the Western scientific method, and the difference between what China may have accomplished in ancient times and today's science cannot even be compared. Just a reminder that gunpowder, paper, etc. are called inventions of "ancient" China, even by the Chinese themselves.

          I agree only to a degree with the original poster. Traditional Chinese culture does indeed stifle

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 )
          Because just several European gunships were able to conquer the China?

          Chinese inventions were treated as novelties, they were not put into practical use.

        • Re:talk about bs... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by microbox ( 704317 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @08:30AM (#22462120)
          They were tossed back to the stone age during world war two, courtesy the Japanese, and basically left to rot by the West - they are just now regaining technical traction. The Chinese used to lead the planet in terms of innovation and they want that honor back.

          Exactly why Europe became what it did is an interesting thing. There is no reason, on the surface, why Europe over any other major culture, and Europe was backwards in many ways.

          I believe it had to do with the free exchange of ideas, that challenged the status-quo. We introduced trial by jury, and reduced violence in society by placing vengence in the hands of judges.

          There was an economic, social and scientific revolution as well. Holland become independent of Spain, but couldn't use its ports, so they created a vast fleet with which to explore and trade. They brought back ideas and money, and common folk became comparatively wealthy. The society was forward thinking and became full of painters, artists and scientists. They invented the microsope which became a popular curiosity. The motions of the planets were described, and the microscopic zoo was discovered. Something fundemental had happened. They saw past themselves to the book of nature, and began to read it.

          While the Ming dynasty sent great junks to explore the world, they also stagnated. A comparatively tiny country - Holland - became a super-power much like Venice once was. The Chinese had invented all sorts of things, but their fundemental direction did not lead them to free thinking.

          Of the eastern powers, only Japan successfully made the transition to an industrial society before WWII. I'm sure the reasons are very complex. The west didn't "throw" china away. They economically exploited it - yes. The British left a legacy of good government in many places in the world, and also let their empire go. This does not right the wrongs of the past, that is impossible. But it does allow the situation to move forward.

          They will leapfrog the industrial revolution and plow headlong directly into the technological revolution while the rest of the world sits and watches.

          I wonder where China will end up. Politically they are as arrogant and close-minded as the US. Taiwan is mine. Tibet is mine. You cannot critize us for how you treat what is mine. When the british cast free their empire, they acknowledged that how they treat their own and each other is a fundemental expression of who they are.

          China's pride - and lust for economic prosperity - has exposed the worst qualities of our industrial age. The rest of the world is watching with facination and horror at China's economic miricle.

          Sometime in the future we're going to be talking about sustainable development like it's the most important thing in the world. But between now and then, there will be a lot of conflict over who gets what. I wonder where China will end up.
        • They were tossed back to the stone age by the great Mao and his ludicrous communist experiments on the people. Japan was bombed to the Jurassic. Korea was split into North and South. Taiwan had to start over after the Japanese were kicked off and the ROC started from scratch.

          So basically everybody started from scratch. 30 years later you see Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea flourish, while mainland China enjoyed the great leap BACKWARD to the stone ages.

          And no the West didn't leave them to rot. The capital

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Knutsi ( 959723 )
        Thank you for a very interesting comment! It made me think of the recent talk (at least here i Norway) on my generation, the so called "millennials" [wikipedia.org] and our lack of respect for old ways. Sadly, I fear it's not combined with a appreciation for knowledge and patience needed to create real breakthroughs.
    • Look, if you're going to do knee-jerk anti-religious trolling, at least do it when it's vaguely on-topic, like stem-cell research, bootstrapping the Eschaton, or building AIs with off-switches. Otherwise it's in as bad taste as saying that we can't do it because too many of our scientists are Jews, or that they can't do it because not enough of their scientists are gay.

      I've seen two areas in which people's ethical or religious beliefs or aesthetics may affect nanotech research - one is what to do about an

    • How is nanotech playing God any more than other methods of medical treatment, such as antidepressants and other behavioural modification drugs for example? I somehow doubt that ethics are the main stumbling block in the field of nanotechnology at the moment. In genetic engineering sure, but nanotech doesn't always have to do with genetics?

  • meh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sylos ( 1073710 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @02:18AM (#22460094)
    Last time China tried a great leap forward..didn't work out so well.
  • Fancy seeing this happening in a country known for its rampant pollution. How long will it be before a Union-Carbide-esque event happens and thousands die? I would urge the Chinese to take caution, but it isn't always their way when dealing with technology and its refuse.

  • In contradiction to the Summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by phantomcircuit ( 938963 ) on Monday February 18, 2008 @02:30AM (#22460164) Homepage
    The article says exactly the opposite of the summary.

    Still, for all the big talk, the actual government investment is not overwhelming. The researchers estimated that the Chinese government only invested $400 million from 2002 to 2007, although that investment is expected to rise considerably.
  • I know for a fact that China is producing a ton of nanotechnology scientists. For one interesting note: this book by my professor [allbookstores.com] is available in two languages - English and Chinese.

  • Standard funding scare & beg (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2008 @02:41AM (#22460222)
    Looks like somebody wants more funding and is raising the China bogeyman to do it.

    • Looks like somebody wants more funding and is raising the China bogeyman to do it.
      I for one am disturbed by the potential for Chinese manufacturing practices to lead to a tainted and unreliable product due to cost cutting and corruption. Gentlemen, we face the threat that the world may have deal with a true Gray Goo Gai Pan disaster.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dwater ( 72834 )
        IINM, a large proportion of the equipment you consider reliable are also made in China.

        From what I've seen, a lot of people prefer low prices to high reliability, so things for local consumption are made poorly. They are perfectly capable of making high quality goods. It's when the QA is substandard that the quality suffers, since they obviously want to maximise profits.

        IMO, the poor quality of some of China's exports are due to the poor QA exerted by the US customer companies. I don't see Apple having any

  • Are they talking about "real" nanotech (atomic-level assemblers), or "hype" nanotech (surface chemistry of finely ground powders)? Much of what's now being touted as "nanotech" is the latter.

    • Are they talking about "real" nanotech (atomic-level assemblers), or "hype" nanotech (surface chemistry of finely ground powders)? Much of what's now being touted as "nanotech" is the latter.

      They're talking "hype"..

      Otherwise they would call it molecular biology. MOLB goes down a whole lot further in scale, and can reliably make things of specific size. etched silicon motors don't even come close to a bacterial motor, size, efficiency, torque. Real nanotech is something that will come more from the bio

  • from the don't-let-them-have-wil-wheaton dept.

    Brought to you by the department of EPIC NANOTECH FAIL.

    Seriously, though, that *is* one of my favourite episodes to feature Wesley. That, and the one with Ashley Judd. :)
  • Soon you'll realize that our nanotech looks small compared to China's!

    Erh... wait, is that a good thing?
  • How is China going to surpass the U.S. or anybody else in an area of technology? You have to wait until something's been invented before you can steal it.
  • What a coincidence that just a few days ago, a study was published showing that religion is the main source of trouble [heise.de] here (as elsewhere), and the main reason the US is slipping behind is the outdated power that religious belief has on the public opinion.
  • Is this the SAME China that, through it's lack of containment and controls, allowed the spread of Bird Flu from its borders? It was pretty widely discussed upon its discovery that China should be taking measures to contain the threat and to destroy all of the birds infected. Clearly, that didn't happen.

    One of the biggest fears regarding nanotech is the creation of a disease that simply can't be destroyed because it would be a machine, not an organism. Are they going to contain THAT?
  • $1,000,000 for actually paying for the thousands of sweat-shop scientists.

    $399,000,000 for the corporate espionage against western nanotech shops.
  • China does have cheaper labor and equipment, but the labor pool is already experiencing heavy demand. Sure there are a lot of Chinese people, but only a small fraction of them have scientific education. It's already hard to find teams of programmers both competent to produce modern programming products (even with lots of competent, experienced management) and still much cheaper than their Euramerican counterparts (after extra management and other overhead costs are included).

    The Chinese equipment is cheaper

Slashdot Top Deals

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Close