a tool for designing peptides from a protein target sequence
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
FireFox beta 4 - Android
Firefox 4 Beta for Mobile is Now Faster and Sleeker :: The Mozilla Blog
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
Monday, November 29, 2010
Re: [OK] What are your questions about social investing? Wikipedia? The relationship economy?
On Nov 28, 2010 6:14 PM, "Tiberius Brastaviceanu" <tiberius.brastaviceanu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice initiative!
>
> I am the founder of the Multitude Project, and I am VERY interested in your
> project!
> https://sites.google.com/site/multitude2008/
>
> Part of our initiative there is Multitude Innovation
> https://sites.google.com/site/multitudeinnovation/
>
> Multitude Innovation is now mixed to other open and collaborative
> initiatives into a mammoth social project, to develop the African continent.
> See this newly born group here
> https://sites.google.com/site/watuafrika/HOME
>
> We are building the New Economy and we are bringing it to Africa, a
> continent that will leapfrog into the future. Why Africa? Because the
> African mind is NOT trapped into the socialism-capitalism dichotomy as most
> of us are. Because Africans have not lost their habits to work in
> collaboration, to live within a community. Because it's time for Africa,
> Africans are ready to rebel, they are awake, they are receptive!
>
> How can we collaborate?
>
> Tiberius Brastaviceanu (Tibi)
> ...................................................
> Founder of the Multitude Project
> Part of the core team at Watu Afrika
> Part of the core team at SICU and SICU INNOVATION.
> Research Assistant at McGill University, Montreal, Canada
> http://www.google.com/profiles/tiberius.brastaviceanu
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Jay Standish <jay.standish@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hey Open-Kollabers!
>>
>> We are heading down to San Francisco this week to do some interviews for
>> the Symbionomics<http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1658818436/symbionomics-stories-of-a-new-economy>film, and we'd like to hear the questions you'd like us to ask! Get back to
>> us ASAP as we start the interviews on Dec. 1st.
>> No guarantees that we will be able to ask all of them, but we'd like to tap
>> into your collective intelligence.
>>
>> The three interviews are:
>>
>> *Jimmy Wales*, Founder, Wikipedia
>>
>> *Kevin Jones*, Social Investor, Principal at Good Capital, Innovator and
>> Market-builder in the Social Investing Space
>>
>> *Jerry Michalski*, Founder of the Relationship Economy Expedition<http://sociate.com/bio.html>,
>> Technologist and Gladwellian Connector
>>
>>
>> All the best!
>>
>> Jay
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> jay.standish //skype
>> @yodelheck //twitter
>> jaystandish.com //web
>>
>> --
>> This is a message from the OpenKollab Google Group located at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab?hl=en
>> To post to this group, send email to openkollab@googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> t!b!
> http://www.google.com/profiles/tiberius.brastaviceanu
>
> --
> This is a message from the OpenKollab Google Group located at http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab?hl=en
> To post to this group, send email to openkollab@googlegroups.com
> Nice initiative!
>
> I am the founder of the Multitude Project, and I am VERY interested in your
> project!
> https://sites.google.com/site/multitude2008/
>
> Part of our initiative there is Multitude Innovation
> https://sites.google.com/site/multitudeinnovation/
>
> Multitude Innovation is now mixed to other open and collaborative
> initiatives into a mammoth social project, to develop the African continent.
> See this newly born group here
> https://sites.google.com/site/watuafrika/HOME
>
> We are building the New Economy and we are bringing it to Africa, a
> continent that will leapfrog into the future. Why Africa? Because the
> African mind is NOT trapped into the socialism-capitalism dichotomy as most
> of us are. Because Africans have not lost their habits to work in
> collaboration, to live within a community. Because it's time for Africa,
> Africans are ready to rebel, they are awake, they are receptive!
>
> How can we collaborate?
>
> Tiberius Brastaviceanu (Tibi)
> ...................................................
> Founder of the Multitude Project
> Part of the core team at Watu Afrika
> Part of the core team at SICU and SICU INNOVATION.
> Research Assistant at McGill University, Montreal, Canada
> http://www.google.com/profiles/tiberius.brastaviceanu
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Jay Standish <jay.standish@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hey Open-Kollabers!
>>
>> We are heading down to San Francisco this week to do some interviews for
>> the Symbionomics<http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1658818436/symbionomics-stories-of-a-new-economy>film, and we'd like to hear the questions you'd like us to ask! Get back to
>> us ASAP as we start the interviews on Dec. 1st.
>> No guarantees that we will be able to ask all of them, but we'd like to tap
>> into your collective intelligence.
>>
>> The three interviews are:
>>
>> *Jimmy Wales*, Founder, Wikipedia
>>
>> *Kevin Jones*, Social Investor, Principal at Good Capital, Innovator and
>> Market-builder in the Social Investing Space
>>
>> *Jerry Michalski*, Founder of the Relationship Economy Expedition<http://sociate.com/bio.html>,
>> Technologist and Gladwellian Connector
>>
>>
>> All the best!
>>
>> Jay
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> jay.standish //skype
>> @yodelheck //twitter
>> jaystandish.com //web
>>
>> --
>> This is a message from the OpenKollab Google Group located at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab?hl=en
>> To post to this group, send email to openkollab@googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> t!b!
> http://www.google.com/profiles/tiberius.brastaviceanu
>
> --
> This is a message from the OpenKollab Google Group located at http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab?hl=en
> To post to this group, send email to openkollab@googlegroups.com
symbionics
Symbionomics: Stories of a New Economy by Alan Rosenblith — Kickstarter
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
Saturday, November 27, 2010
3d phonenone
Sharp introduces two new Android phones that feature a 3D camera | Blog | ZiggyTek
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
hydrogen photo
Research team takes image of hydrogen atom | The Japan Times Online
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
printed transformer
Shapeways Delivery 26-11-10 :: shapeways_salvo-07.jpg picture by DrawnSteelHero - Photobucket
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
Re: Feature request: Bounded-volume fill
This has been added to the feature request page.
Great idea. Also, let's not forget to add this to the wiki feature request page:
http://www.nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Feature_requests
I will add features to the Request Page as I see them. I think this duty and all duties should be distributed to everyone capable of doing them. By this I mean that everyone should add features to the Request Page. This would insure that even if one person was away from the computer for a long time, the work would still be done.
I vote me nominate one person as the designated Feature Request Updater and Tracker. I nominate Lee.
Re: [Open Manufacturing] Co-Ownership for Success in Open Manufacturing (enforcement)
On Nov 27, 2010 9:06 AM, "Paul D. Fernhout" <pdfernhout@kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/10 11:32 AM, Thomas Fledrich wrote:
>> A strong state means less freedom for the
>> individual, be it in education (like a ban on home schooling),
>> artificial scarcity in the size of available land by declaring most of
>> it a non-housing zone or en even stronger states making it very
>> difficult to get the means to communicate to the outside world and
>> voice an opinion that is not in line with the state-endorsed way of
>> thinking.
> >
>> On the other hand, a weak government means wealthy people might just
>> take their place and do the same based on property laws.
>
> Yes, and we have a lot of that now, and it is a problem with
> Propertarian libertarianism. Although some libertarians argue that
> without a state enforcing lots of laws, it is hard for any one entity to
> accumulate a lot of property and power.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=libertarian+concentration+of+wealth
>
> From:
> http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2262075548&topic=5192&_fb_noscript=1
> "There is an important difference. Liberal egalitarians hold that both
> genetic talents and society's resources may be redistributed to achieve
> a particular pattern of equality. Left-libertarians hold that give each
> person is a self-owner and thus has a natural right to profit from the
> exercise of any talents which he or she has. However, the right to
> genetic talents does not extend to a right to a greater share of
> undeveloped, natural resources. Consequently, all people should be given
> an equal share of these resources. Any inequalities which develop from
> this distribution of unowned resources are perfectly justifiable from a
> left-libertarian perspective. In contrast, a liberal egalitarian would
> say that we should continually redistribute to preserve a pattern of
> equality. Left-libertarians set up an initially equal distribution of
> resources but then accept any inequalities which flow from that initial
> distribution."
>
> Note by the way a "genetic" model of ability here that ignores
> parenting, the effect of class and family wealth (which may be inherited
> generations back to original land "thieves"), and so on.
>
> Also from there: "The other, potentially bigger issue, is wealth
> concentration. As even more capitalisty left-libertarians like Roderick
> Long admit, corporate capitalism is a result of rent-seeking by
> concentrated special interests. Thus, we need to be concerned about
> eliminating the potential that any aristocracy can form. Thus, we can't
> scoff at progressive taxation. We also need to build organizational and
> technological models that allow for effective decentralized organization
> to prevent concentrated wealth from overpowering an apathetic masses.
> However, the decentralized structures will even crumble if the
> concentration of wealth grows too much.... and when radical life
> extension starts that potential problem grows even larger."
>
> But then another reply is:
> "There aren't any guarantees, in any system, whether statist or
> anarchist, but any potential for plutocracy can only be magnified by the
> state."
>
> Which brings one back to a question of what sort of state? What sort of
> constitution? Or what interpretation of the constitution we already have
> in the USA (or some other country)?
>
>> One solution
>> for this is to keep the means for defense distributed in the whole of
>> society, so no elite group will be able to enforce their demands past
>> a certain point where people become really upset. So if they're any
>> smart they won't try to.
>
> I can see how you can't talk about "ownership" without talking about the
> means (cultural or military) by which "ownership" will be enforced.
>
> It's actually a common criticism of people advocating for social change
> that they often assume some part of the old order when talking about a
> new one. So, for example, people implicitly tend to assume the phones
> keep working and the police keep showing up for domestic violence
> situations the way they currently do when talking about anarchism. :-)
> It's hard to think about how basic social processes in a different
> paradigm without slipping into just assuming past processes continue,
> like ignoring copper thieves.
>
> Historically in the USA what you suggest has been part of the culture --
> things like the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US
> Constitution to keep the potentially tyrannical power of government in
> check.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>
> But personally I do not feel that small arms or whatever other locally
> violent things people may try to use to "resist tyranny" are an
> important aspect of this social process anymore in the 21st century
> (especially given how outgunned and out-organized the general public is
> by professionals), and so I think a Gandhi-like approach to focus on a
> shift in social consciousness to go with a different notion of the
> economy is a better idea.
>
> One can make a different sort of argument as well, that a lot of these
> issues get decided by who the professional military and police
> ultimately decides to support in a widespread social conflict, but I
> think it comes down to the same thing -- a shift in social consciousness
> among that leadership, a shift which will likely lag by a decade or more
> what is going on in the rest of the society. Ultimately, when the police
> force or military is made up of people who have solar panels on their
> roofs (or maybe Mr. Fusion in their basements) and a 3D printer in their
> kitchen, then they just are not going to be as inclined to want to die
> in wars over oil in the Middle East and they will be less likely to want
> to imprison people for talking about new useful things to print out in
> 3D printers. And also, with solar panels and 3D printers, such people
> are going to be less dependent on their jobs for "income" and so will
> feel they have more options for dissent (even within a hierarchy there
> are degrees of compliance). We don't quite see that with music sharing
> (police who grew up listening to downloaded music may still enforce RIAA
> demands), but I think that ultimately, with changes related to 3D
> printing and robotics and so on, we may see a bigger paradigm shift.
> Maybe that is more of a hope than a certainty (some people may always be
> martinets), but it's the best hope I can offer.
>
> Why do I think a Gandhi-like movement is a better idea?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi
>
> To begin with, I agree with this:
> "Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence"
> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html
> "For current-day egalitarians, a commitment to the freedoms and
> democratic procedures won by past egalitarians can provide the primary
> foundation for the practice of nonviolence, although some of them also
> draw upon their religious values as well. This democratic commitment has
> the added virtue of narrowing the gap between egalitarians and
> mainstream liberals. In addition, a nonviolence orientation can be
> sustained by the knowledge that it helps to keep the egalitarian
> movement itself more democratic; it ensures that violence-prone
> dominators will not take over the movement and subvert its democratic
> aims. As many historical cases suggest, the most violent people soon
> rise to the top once the possibility of violence is introduced, and they
> often use their loyal followers to intimidate or kill rivals.
> ... Violence-prone activists sometimes like to claim they are merely
> retaliating against violence by the police, which they think people will
> understand and even applaud as justifiable self-protection. Some
> activists also believe that standing up to the police will inspire
> others to join them because they have shown they are serious about
> challenging the system. However, as polls taken after such incidents
> show, most people do not accept these rationales. They do not like to
> hear of extreme reactions by the police, but they tend to blame the
> demonstrators, even when the police are the primary instigators. Thus,
> it is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong, or about which side
> started it. It is a matter of whether physical confrontations are
> effective in gaining adherents, and it seems clear that they are not."
>
> So, if your main goal is to bring as many people into a movement like
> open manufacturing as possible, including people involved in law
> enforcement, the intelligence services, the military, and so on, then
> killing lots of people (or threatening to do so), especially killing the
> buddies of professional security people, seems like a really bad idea.
> Violence is just going to harden the opinion of law enforcement and, in
> general, turn the bulk of the population away from any movement.
>
> Even I get squirmy when I see some activist being impolite at some
> political event or some board meeting even when I totally agree with the
> point being made -- it just feels wrong in our society. Sure, it's good
> that there are people standing up for something, telling past-President
> Bush or whoever that he has done illegal things for oil profits or
> whatever, or telling a town planning board it is selling out to Walmart
> or whatever, but ultimately, it's not really moving us forward as a
> country. It just becomes a big focus of energy, with often not much
> results but a hardening of hearts (based on cognitive dissonance).
> "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs,
> Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts"
> http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986
>
> What might make more of a difference than protests is people getting to
> know their neighbors and talking about alternatives to oil use like
> helping each other insulate their homes better or discussing EVs like
> the Chevy Volt vs. the Nissan Leaf or talking about vegan recipes, and
> people getting elected to town planning boards, and things like that.
> More ideas in that direction by me:
> "Rebutting Communiqué from an Absent Future (was Re: Information on
> student protests)"
> http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/006005.html
>
> Even in Iraq, what have, say, IEDs really accomplished as far as making
> Iraq a better place? They seem to just be used to justify further
> occupation by the USA. Some soldier sees his (or her) buddy get blown up
> just driving along and then feels emotionally justified in killing lots
> of Iraqis as pay-back -- that's only human, even if it might violate the
> code of war. Eventually, years from now, the violence in Iraq will end
> when everyone gets tired of the death and bloodshed, some sort of civil
> order will be restored, and non-violent cultural change processes will
> reassert themselves, and the US power structure there will eventually be
> rejected. If Iraq was "peaceful", how long would the mandate last in the
> USA for having a lot of expensive soldiers there? A couple of months?
> Obama would declare victory, pull most of the troops, and in a couple
> years Iraq would go its own way. Same for Afghanistan.
>
> A lot of politically-motivated violence in the USA, given the fragmented
> partisanship of Blue and Red, might also potentially make it like Iraq,
> or like Northern Ireland in the past. We would be much more likely to
> see Democrats vs. Republicans instead of the "elite" vs. "the people".
> (That's part of a "divide and conquer" strategy to begin with to the
> extent an elite is organized.) Clearly there is little social consensus
> in the USA about some of the basics of government as far as some
> policies (even if most people want single payer health care, or relief
> for the poor, and organic food, and the end of overseas wars, and so
> on). One might point to decades of propaganda (by a variety of sides)
> that have made it that way, as well as, through industrialization and
> bad policy, decades of malnutrition and vitamin D deficiency (as well as
> exposure to toxins from poorly made products) that have made the bulk of
> the US population crazy or depressed. But if that's the way it is,
> that's the way it is, and adding widespread violence to that mix
> probably is not going to make anything better IMHO.
>
> What will make things better?
>
> I think we need to get at the roots of some of these issues, and that
> connects back with "ownership" issues and open manufacturing. So, we
> need to get the population healthier (eating more vegetables and fruits,
> more exercise, better sleep, adequate vitamin D, adequate omega-3s,
> enough B vitamins, etc.) in part more engagement with their local areas
> and home gardens and local farmers and creating local walking paths (see
> "Blue Zones" for some ideas). And we need to have better products and
> infrastructure with less toxins (in part through open manufacturing or
> broader initiatives like NIST's SLIM project). And we need to have
> people see a better paradigm as to what is possible both by theory and
> practice (open manufacturing, open source software, 3D printing, open
> content, a bigger gift economy, and so on). And the wonderful thing is,
> it is indeed all happening, even if it would be hard to tell if you only
> watch the mainstream media:
> http://www.blessedunrest.com/
>
> A basic income would help too, and as I suggest here we already are
> spending enough on welfare to have one in the USA with not new taxes:
>
> http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/will-a-college-education-be-worth-the-investment-in-the-future/#comment-438
> "Essentially, between schooling and social security and welfare, about a
> third or so of the US population is already having the equivalent of a
> "basic income" worth of money spent on their behalf. From
> usgovernmentspending.com it is for the 2010 fiscal year $1026 billion
> for education, $762 billion for welfare, and (from Wikipedia) $678
> billion on Social Security. Together, that is $2466 billion. That is
> enough for a basic income (with no needs test or age requirement) of
> about US$8,000 per year per person for about 310 million US citizens.
> Health care for all could be covered by the additional trillion dollars
> or so already spend in the USA for Medicare/Medicaid by switching it to
> a less costly single-payer model or some other universal coverage
> system. For a family of four, that would be US$32,000 a year to live off
> of (in addition to full sick care benefits). That would be tight, but
> such people could also do other things in their spare time (take jobs,
> run a business, save money by making things themselves including with 3D
> printers or organic gardens, and so on).
> Also, without a need for a job, people could live in a cheaper rural
> area with more access to land for a garden and so on. Many families of
> four in the USA do already live off of about this level of income — but
> usually they are working multiple minimum wage jobs to do so, so having
> this income but not having to work 80 hours a week for it would free up
> a lot of time to make other improvements in their life. People could
> also plan with more confidence, knowing they would always have that
> basic income, so they could do things like work towards becoming
> artists, or mimes, or novelists, or free software developers from a
> young age, without their parents saying, how are you going to make a
> living at that? [fixed typos]"
>
> We might then wan to think about making our rural areas prettier:
> "Rural Area Depopulation is in part Due to Lack of Surrounding Natural
> Beauty"
> http://bigpictureagriculture.blogspot.com/2010/11/rural-area-depopulation-is-in-part-due.html
>
> As well as maybe having better to recycle stuff:
> "Burkhard Bilger, A Reporter at Large, "Nature's Spoils""
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/22/101122fa_fact_bilger
>
> I've recently been reading parts of Treasure Island, the Algebraist, and
> a Bolo story (where a bolo defends "Camelot" from pirates) to my kid
> (who has a current interest in armed conflict and pirates), plus I've
> been rereading some parts of Iain Banks's Culture Novel "Excession" to
> myself.
>
> If you think about the meaning of some of those sorts of stories, with
> some sort of violent conflict woven into them, as well as a book like
> Voyage from Yesteryear, they do tend to make a point that a group of
> people collectively can be powerful. They usually make that point by
> saying the group can make or use weapons. What wins in some such stories
> tends to be either extreme individual effort or broad collective effort.
> In some, there is a swashbuckling fanatical Robin Hood-like commitment
> to the common good by one individual or a small group of such
> individuals (usually aided by some personal friends in indirect ways).
> This is as opposed to the what happens to those committed to greed or
> cruelty, where such advocates have poor communications and commitment
> among their subordinates who all go skulking off in the end because they
> can't take the heat or are just lazy. The champions just happen to be
> really good soldiers in some way (Luke Skywalker practiced shooting
> "Womp rats"). Or, alternatively, what wins is the fact that a whole
> bunch of people (the general populace) who have banded together for a
> common cause and who essentially intimidate a small number of elite
> rulers, usually lead by some charismatic individual or group. Of course,
> that is often how big groups go bad, too -- charisma (think Hitler who
> was very charismatic for his time and place).
>
> Those make good stories, but I can wonder if the reality we face today
> is very different. In the 21st century, we face a reality where the
> central problem is that we already devote so much of our society to
> guarding (like Bob Black mentions in "The Abolition of Work"). If we
> want to move beyond that guarding paradigm, it would seem that violence
> will just increase the amount of energy going into excessive guarding.
> As long as the general populace believes in the value of widespread
> guarding as a great use of public energy, then not much will change. But
> how do you convince people of excessive guarding as a waste by making
> them more afraid? I won't argue that we need no "security" (even if that
> means some guarding), but certainly we can discuss the amount and the
> approach -- like intrinsic security vs. extrinsic security, and mutual
> security vs. unilateral security.
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
>
> One might argue that a major reason for open manufacturing in the USA is
> precisely because it makes us more secure. That is because it most
> effectively mutually and intrinsically guards our life-support systems
> to have them, say, in the hands of local communities than people living
> in China (manufactured goods) or the Middle East (energy) or Africa (raw
> materials). So, I think one can have productive discussions about open
> manufacturing and how it relates to national security, but those are
> going to be different discussions than ones about, say, printing guns.
>
> Of those stories, Voyage From Yesteryear might be the healthiest take on
> all that. I think, if anything, like in Voyage from Yesteryear, or Iain
> Banks' writings, one might see that war making in an advanced culture is
> something some people might be good at, but generally in a hobbyist sort
> of way incidental to the mainstream bulk of what the culture does (by
> hobbyist I don't mean unprofessional -- a lot of hobbyist can be more
> serious than professionals).
>
> That situation is certainly not what we have in the USA at the moment
> where so much money is shunted into "Defense" (which is really defense
> of privilege as a "racket" according to Smedley Butler). And it's a very
> different situation where individuals with small arms (even in small
> groups) are very focused on the notion that their guns can somehow
> protect them as individuals or small groups from huge bureaucracies
> backed by millions strong police and military who would glory in the
> chance to do battle as a unit against someone they though of as a wacko
> or wackos with handguns, and who also would not rest until there was
> vengeance done against somebody if one of their own buddies falls.
>
> Anyway, there is a "war" going on in a sense even right now. It's just a
> more subtle one than one waged with bullets. :-) And "war" is not even
> the right metaphor, because it is more about transcending conflict than
> triumphing at it. Related:
> "James P. Carse, Religious War In Light of the Infinite Game, SALT talk"
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-962221125884493114#
>
> As Isaac Asimov had his character Salvor Hardin say: "Violence is the
> last refuge of the incompetent."
>
> The fact is, refusal to cooperate with certain mainstream trends as well
> as cooperation to bring about alternative other trends would be far more
> effective than any gun play that just justifies more invasive body
> scanners at airports, or now, as is proposed, train terminals, bus
> lines, subways, and so on.
>
> Consider:
> "Next step for tight security could be trains, boats, metro "
> http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-
>
> See also the racket aspect of promoting fear:
> "Fear Pays: Chertoff, Ex-Security Officials Slammed For Cashing In On
> Government Experience"
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html
>
> Which is just another aspect of this:
> "War is a Racket"
> http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
>
> So, we as a society ironically take all the material resources and
> social energy that could go into building a better world of abundance
> for everyone and use them to implement a security state with scanners
> everywhere implementing artificial scarcity. All the social energy that
> could go into building a better world instead just goes into opposing
> all that, and then if the conflict descends into gunplay, we just see
> more scanners, and so on.
>
> So, I'd suggest that more violence is only going to accelerate that
> trend. Even the threat of it just justifies more trouble. As I suggest here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/ae28e8971f8f9669?hl=en
> "My advice to people here is to build movements in such a way that the
> CIA can be proud of them :-) as well as so Smári and Bryan and others
> here can be proud of them too. :-) And, given the CIA is hiring
> machinists, build a movement where, in a good way, you assume everyone
> in it is working for the CIA, :-) but where you still get important
> stuff done in moving the world towards a post-scarcity open future. Just
> like people should assume Google is a division of the NSA and/or CIA.
> :-) An impossible task? Well, consider it more like a creative
> challenge. :-) "
>
> Some recent stuff I've written along that line, too:
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html
>
> I'm not saying that, say, the current airport gropedowns and irradiation
> are not a problem. I've already turned down chances to go and talk at
> two conferences in the past year (where someone else would pay my way)
> because it would entail flying. I think the security theater there is an
> embarrassment for our society.
>
> Ultimately, this will only change when we all rise up and... *vote* for
> different policies either in the voting booth, with our dollars, or with
> our time and other resources. Even if electronic voting machines were
> rigged, we can still vote with our time and volunteerism. Let's just
> skip the whole "and now everyone shoots everyone else bit" and move
> straight "and what do we do now that the shooting is over bit?" :-)
>
> Ultimately, we need to wage the peace. :-)
>
> And ideally, that is what open manufacturing, FOSS, and so on as a broad
> movement is mostly doing. :-)
> "Study Reports On Debian Governance, Social Organization"
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/14/1349202
>
> I don't think an elite is that worried about, say, 3D printers printing
> out handguns or even DIY-Bio making disease stuff, because it all just
> justifies a stronger national security state, which means their role in
> this world is strengthened further.
>
> From that Huffington Post article:
> "Chertoff, who is a frequent guest on cable news, often touts security
> proposals and technologies that align with the interests of or are
> manufactured by his clients. He recently told CNBC that he'd like to see
> "more investment in bio-security" because "I think we are beginning to
> lag a little behind in terms of being able to respond to biological
> threats." The Chertoff Group has invested in BioNeutral, a biotech
> startup based in New Jersey that is developing technology to combat
> dangerous microorganisms. In a relatively rare disclosure, Chertoff
> acknowledged in the interview that "we do represent companies that make
> sensors and technology of that sort.""
>
> It is only when we use all those post-scarcity technologies to build
> some positive optimistic abundant healthy alternatives with all that
> technology that we will see those forces of greed and fear fade away.
>
> And the biggest issue there is people taking ownership of their own time
> to use it for worthwhile post-scarcity ends.
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
> ====
> The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
> of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
>
> On 11/24/10 11:32 AM, Thomas Fledrich wrote:
>> A strong state means less freedom for the
>> individual, be it in education (like a ban on home schooling),
>> artificial scarcity in the size of available land by declaring most of
>> it a non-housing zone or en even stronger states making it very
>> difficult to get the means to communicate to the outside world and
>> voice an opinion that is not in line with the state-endorsed way of
>> thinking.
> >
>> On the other hand, a weak government means wealthy people might just
>> take their place and do the same based on property laws.
>
> Yes, and we have a lot of that now, and it is a problem with
> Propertarian libertarianism. Although some libertarians argue that
> without a state enforcing lots of laws, it is hard for any one entity to
> accumulate a lot of property and power.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=libertarian+concentration+of+wealth
>
> From:
> http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2262075548&topic=5192&_fb_noscript=1
> "There is an important difference. Liberal egalitarians hold that both
> genetic talents and society's resources may be redistributed to achieve
> a particular pattern of equality. Left-libertarians hold that give each
> person is a self-owner and thus has a natural right to profit from the
> exercise of any talents which he or she has. However, the right to
> genetic talents does not extend to a right to a greater share of
> undeveloped, natural resources. Consequently, all people should be given
> an equal share of these resources. Any inequalities which develop from
> this distribution of unowned resources are perfectly justifiable from a
> left-libertarian perspective. In contrast, a liberal egalitarian would
> say that we should continually redistribute to preserve a pattern of
> equality. Left-libertarians set up an initially equal distribution of
> resources but then accept any inequalities which flow from that initial
> distribution."
>
> Note by the way a "genetic" model of ability here that ignores
> parenting, the effect of class and family wealth (which may be inherited
> generations back to original land "thieves"), and so on.
>
> Also from there: "The other, potentially bigger issue, is wealth
> concentration. As even more capitalisty left-libertarians like Roderick
> Long admit, corporate capitalism is a result of rent-seeking by
> concentrated special interests. Thus, we need to be concerned about
> eliminating the potential that any aristocracy can form. Thus, we can't
> scoff at progressive taxation. We also need to build organizational and
> technological models that allow for effective decentralized organization
> to prevent concentrated wealth from overpowering an apathetic masses.
> However, the decentralized structures will even crumble if the
> concentration of wealth grows too much.... and when radical life
> extension starts that potential problem grows even larger."
>
> But then another reply is:
> "There aren't any guarantees, in any system, whether statist or
> anarchist, but any potential for plutocracy can only be magnified by the
> state."
>
> Which brings one back to a question of what sort of state? What sort of
> constitution? Or what interpretation of the constitution we already have
> in the USA (or some other country)?
>
>> One solution
>> for this is to keep the means for defense distributed in the whole of
>> society, so no elite group will be able to enforce their demands past
>> a certain point where people become really upset. So if they're any
>> smart they won't try to.
>
> I can see how you can't talk about "ownership" without talking about the
> means (cultural or military) by which "ownership" will be enforced.
>
> It's actually a common criticism of people advocating for social change
> that they often assume some part of the old order when talking about a
> new one. So, for example, people implicitly tend to assume the phones
> keep working and the police keep showing up for domestic violence
> situations the way they currently do when talking about anarchism. :-)
> It's hard to think about how basic social processes in a different
> paradigm without slipping into just assuming past processes continue,
> like ignoring copper thieves.
>
> Historically in the USA what you suggest has been part of the culture --
> things like the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US
> Constitution to keep the potentially tyrannical power of government in
> check.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>
> But personally I do not feel that small arms or whatever other locally
> violent things people may try to use to "resist tyranny" are an
> important aspect of this social process anymore in the 21st century
> (especially given how outgunned and out-organized the general public is
> by professionals), and so I think a Gandhi-like approach to focus on a
> shift in social consciousness to go with a different notion of the
> economy is a better idea.
>
> One can make a different sort of argument as well, that a lot of these
> issues get decided by who the professional military and police
> ultimately decides to support in a widespread social conflict, but I
> think it comes down to the same thing -- a shift in social consciousness
> among that leadership, a shift which will likely lag by a decade or more
> what is going on in the rest of the society. Ultimately, when the police
> force or military is made up of people who have solar panels on their
> roofs (or maybe Mr. Fusion in their basements) and a 3D printer in their
> kitchen, then they just are not going to be as inclined to want to die
> in wars over oil in the Middle East and they will be less likely to want
> to imprison people for talking about new useful things to print out in
> 3D printers. And also, with solar panels and 3D printers, such people
> are going to be less dependent on their jobs for "income" and so will
> feel they have more options for dissent (even within a hierarchy there
> are degrees of compliance). We don't quite see that with music sharing
> (police who grew up listening to downloaded music may still enforce RIAA
> demands), but I think that ultimately, with changes related to 3D
> printing and robotics and so on, we may see a bigger paradigm shift.
> Maybe that is more of a hope than a certainty (some people may always be
> martinets), but it's the best hope I can offer.
>
> Why do I think a Gandhi-like movement is a better idea?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi
>
> To begin with, I agree with this:
> "Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence"
> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html
> "For current-day egalitarians, a commitment to the freedoms and
> democratic procedures won by past egalitarians can provide the primary
> foundation for the practice of nonviolence, although some of them also
> draw upon their religious values as well. This democratic commitment has
> the added virtue of narrowing the gap between egalitarians and
> mainstream liberals. In addition, a nonviolence orientation can be
> sustained by the knowledge that it helps to keep the egalitarian
> movement itself more democratic; it ensures that violence-prone
> dominators will not take over the movement and subvert its democratic
> aims. As many historical cases suggest, the most violent people soon
> rise to the top once the possibility of violence is introduced, and they
> often use their loyal followers to intimidate or kill rivals.
> ... Violence-prone activists sometimes like to claim they are merely
> retaliating against violence by the police, which they think people will
> understand and even applaud as justifiable self-protection. Some
> activists also believe that standing up to the police will inspire
> others to join them because they have shown they are serious about
> challenging the system. However, as polls taken after such incidents
> show, most people do not accept these rationales. They do not like to
> hear of extreme reactions by the police, but they tend to blame the
> demonstrators, even when the police are the primary instigators. Thus,
> it is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong, or about which side
> started it. It is a matter of whether physical confrontations are
> effective in gaining adherents, and it seems clear that they are not."
>
> So, if your main goal is to bring as many people into a movement like
> open manufacturing as possible, including people involved in law
> enforcement, the intelligence services, the military, and so on, then
> killing lots of people (or threatening to do so), especially killing the
> buddies of professional security people, seems like a really bad idea.
> Violence is just going to harden the opinion of law enforcement and, in
> general, turn the bulk of the population away from any movement.
>
> Even I get squirmy when I see some activist being impolite at some
> political event or some board meeting even when I totally agree with the
> point being made -- it just feels wrong in our society. Sure, it's good
> that there are people standing up for something, telling past-President
> Bush or whoever that he has done illegal things for oil profits or
> whatever, or telling a town planning board it is selling out to Walmart
> or whatever, but ultimately, it's not really moving us forward as a
> country. It just becomes a big focus of energy, with often not much
> results but a hardening of hearts (based on cognitive dissonance).
> "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs,
> Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts"
> http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986
>
> What might make more of a difference than protests is people getting to
> know their neighbors and talking about alternatives to oil use like
> helping each other insulate their homes better or discussing EVs like
> the Chevy Volt vs. the Nissan Leaf or talking about vegan recipes, and
> people getting elected to town planning boards, and things like that.
> More ideas in that direction by me:
> "Rebutting Communiqué from an Absent Future (was Re: Information on
> student protests)"
> http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/006005.html
>
> Even in Iraq, what have, say, IEDs really accomplished as far as making
> Iraq a better place? They seem to just be used to justify further
> occupation by the USA. Some soldier sees his (or her) buddy get blown up
> just driving along and then feels emotionally justified in killing lots
> of Iraqis as pay-back -- that's only human, even if it might violate the
> code of war. Eventually, years from now, the violence in Iraq will end
> when everyone gets tired of the death and bloodshed, some sort of civil
> order will be restored, and non-violent cultural change processes will
> reassert themselves, and the US power structure there will eventually be
> rejected. If Iraq was "peaceful", how long would the mandate last in the
> USA for having a lot of expensive soldiers there? A couple of months?
> Obama would declare victory, pull most of the troops, and in a couple
> years Iraq would go its own way. Same for Afghanistan.
>
> A lot of politically-motivated violence in the USA, given the fragmented
> partisanship of Blue and Red, might also potentially make it like Iraq,
> or like Northern Ireland in the past. We would be much more likely to
> see Democrats vs. Republicans instead of the "elite" vs. "the people".
> (That's part of a "divide and conquer" strategy to begin with to the
> extent an elite is organized.) Clearly there is little social consensus
> in the USA about some of the basics of government as far as some
> policies (even if most people want single payer health care, or relief
> for the poor, and organic food, and the end of overseas wars, and so
> on). One might point to decades of propaganda (by a variety of sides)
> that have made it that way, as well as, through industrialization and
> bad policy, decades of malnutrition and vitamin D deficiency (as well as
> exposure to toxins from poorly made products) that have made the bulk of
> the US population crazy or depressed. But if that's the way it is,
> that's the way it is, and adding widespread violence to that mix
> probably is not going to make anything better IMHO.
>
> What will make things better?
>
> I think we need to get at the roots of some of these issues, and that
> connects back with "ownership" issues and open manufacturing. So, we
> need to get the population healthier (eating more vegetables and fruits,
> more exercise, better sleep, adequate vitamin D, adequate omega-3s,
> enough B vitamins, etc.) in part more engagement with their local areas
> and home gardens and local farmers and creating local walking paths (see
> "Blue Zones" for some ideas). And we need to have better products and
> infrastructure with less toxins (in part through open manufacturing or
> broader initiatives like NIST's SLIM project). And we need to have
> people see a better paradigm as to what is possible both by theory and
> practice (open manufacturing, open source software, 3D printing, open
> content, a bigger gift economy, and so on). And the wonderful thing is,
> it is indeed all happening, even if it would be hard to tell if you only
> watch the mainstream media:
> http://www.blessedunrest.com/
>
> A basic income would help too, and as I suggest here we already are
> spending enough on welfare to have one in the USA with not new taxes:
>
> http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/will-a-college-education-be-worth-the-investment-in-the-future/#comment-438
> "Essentially, between schooling and social security and welfare, about a
> third or so of the US population is already having the equivalent of a
> "basic income" worth of money spent on their behalf. From
> usgovernmentspending.com it is for the 2010 fiscal year $1026 billion
> for education, $762 billion for welfare, and (from Wikipedia) $678
> billion on Social Security. Together, that is $2466 billion. That is
> enough for a basic income (with no needs test or age requirement) of
> about US$8,000 per year per person for about 310 million US citizens.
> Health care for all could be covered by the additional trillion dollars
> or so already spend in the USA for Medicare/Medicaid by switching it to
> a less costly single-payer model or some other universal coverage
> system. For a family of four, that would be US$32,000 a year to live off
> of (in addition to full sick care benefits). That would be tight, but
> such people could also do other things in their spare time (take jobs,
> run a business, save money by making things themselves including with 3D
> printers or organic gardens, and so on).
> Also, without a need for a job, people could live in a cheaper rural
> area with more access to land for a garden and so on. Many families of
> four in the USA do already live off of about this level of income — but
> usually they are working multiple minimum wage jobs to do so, so having
> this income but not having to work 80 hours a week for it would free up
> a lot of time to make other improvements in their life. People could
> also plan with more confidence, knowing they would always have that
> basic income, so they could do things like work towards becoming
> artists, or mimes, or novelists, or free software developers from a
> young age, without their parents saying, how are you going to make a
> living at that? [fixed typos]"
>
> We might then wan to think about making our rural areas prettier:
> "Rural Area Depopulation is in part Due to Lack of Surrounding Natural
> Beauty"
> http://bigpictureagriculture.blogspot.com/2010/11/rural-area-depopulation-is-in-part-due.html
>
> As well as maybe having better to recycle stuff:
> "Burkhard Bilger, A Reporter at Large, "Nature's Spoils""
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/22/101122fa_fact_bilger
>
> I've recently been reading parts of Treasure Island, the Algebraist, and
> a Bolo story (where a bolo defends "Camelot" from pirates) to my kid
> (who has a current interest in armed conflict and pirates), plus I've
> been rereading some parts of Iain Banks's Culture Novel "Excession" to
> myself.
>
> If you think about the meaning of some of those sorts of stories, with
> some sort of violent conflict woven into them, as well as a book like
> Voyage from Yesteryear, they do tend to make a point that a group of
> people collectively can be powerful. They usually make that point by
> saying the group can make or use weapons. What wins in some such stories
> tends to be either extreme individual effort or broad collective effort.
> In some, there is a swashbuckling fanatical Robin Hood-like commitment
> to the common good by one individual or a small group of such
> individuals (usually aided by some personal friends in indirect ways).
> This is as opposed to the what happens to those committed to greed or
> cruelty, where such advocates have poor communications and commitment
> among their subordinates who all go skulking off in the end because they
> can't take the heat or are just lazy. The champions just happen to be
> really good soldiers in some way (Luke Skywalker practiced shooting
> "Womp rats"). Or, alternatively, what wins is the fact that a whole
> bunch of people (the general populace) who have banded together for a
> common cause and who essentially intimidate a small number of elite
> rulers, usually lead by some charismatic individual or group. Of course,
> that is often how big groups go bad, too -- charisma (think Hitler who
> was very charismatic for his time and place).
>
> Those make good stories, but I can wonder if the reality we face today
> is very different. In the 21st century, we face a reality where the
> central problem is that we already devote so much of our society to
> guarding (like Bob Black mentions in "The Abolition of Work"). If we
> want to move beyond that guarding paradigm, it would seem that violence
> will just increase the amount of energy going into excessive guarding.
> As long as the general populace believes in the value of widespread
> guarding as a great use of public energy, then not much will change. But
> how do you convince people of excessive guarding as a waste by making
> them more afraid? I won't argue that we need no "security" (even if that
> means some guarding), but certainly we can discuss the amount and the
> approach -- like intrinsic security vs. extrinsic security, and mutual
> security vs. unilateral security.
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
>
> One might argue that a major reason for open manufacturing in the USA is
> precisely because it makes us more secure. That is because it most
> effectively mutually and intrinsically guards our life-support systems
> to have them, say, in the hands of local communities than people living
> in China (manufactured goods) or the Middle East (energy) or Africa (raw
> materials). So, I think one can have productive discussions about open
> manufacturing and how it relates to national security, but those are
> going to be different discussions than ones about, say, printing guns.
>
> Of those stories, Voyage From Yesteryear might be the healthiest take on
> all that. I think, if anything, like in Voyage from Yesteryear, or Iain
> Banks' writings, one might see that war making in an advanced culture is
> something some people might be good at, but generally in a hobbyist sort
> of way incidental to the mainstream bulk of what the culture does (by
> hobbyist I don't mean unprofessional -- a lot of hobbyist can be more
> serious than professionals).
>
> That situation is certainly not what we have in the USA at the moment
> where so much money is shunted into "Defense" (which is really defense
> of privilege as a "racket" according to Smedley Butler). And it's a very
> different situation where individuals with small arms (even in small
> groups) are very focused on the notion that their guns can somehow
> protect them as individuals or small groups from huge bureaucracies
> backed by millions strong police and military who would glory in the
> chance to do battle as a unit against someone they though of as a wacko
> or wackos with handguns, and who also would not rest until there was
> vengeance done against somebody if one of their own buddies falls.
>
> Anyway, there is a "war" going on in a sense even right now. It's just a
> more subtle one than one waged with bullets. :-) And "war" is not even
> the right metaphor, because it is more about transcending conflict than
> triumphing at it. Related:
> "James P. Carse, Religious War In Light of the Infinite Game, SALT talk"
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-962221125884493114#
>
> As Isaac Asimov had his character Salvor Hardin say: "Violence is the
> last refuge of the incompetent."
>
> The fact is, refusal to cooperate with certain mainstream trends as well
> as cooperation to bring about alternative other trends would be far more
> effective than any gun play that just justifies more invasive body
> scanners at airports, or now, as is proposed, train terminals, bus
> lines, subways, and so on.
>
> Consider:
> "Next step for tight security could be trains, boats, metro "
> http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-
>
> See also the racket aspect of promoting fear:
> "Fear Pays: Chertoff, Ex-Security Officials Slammed For Cashing In On
> Government Experience"
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html
>
> Which is just another aspect of this:
> "War is a Racket"
> http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
>
> So, we as a society ironically take all the material resources and
> social energy that could go into building a better world of abundance
> for everyone and use them to implement a security state with scanners
> everywhere implementing artificial scarcity. All the social energy that
> could go into building a better world instead just goes into opposing
> all that, and then if the conflict descends into gunplay, we just see
> more scanners, and so on.
>
> So, I'd suggest that more violence is only going to accelerate that
> trend. Even the threat of it just justifies more trouble. As I suggest here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/ae28e8971f8f9669?hl=en
> "My advice to people here is to build movements in such a way that the
> CIA can be proud of them :-) as well as so Smári and Bryan and others
> here can be proud of them too. :-) And, given the CIA is hiring
> machinists, build a movement where, in a good way, you assume everyone
> in it is working for the CIA, :-) but where you still get important
> stuff done in moving the world towards a post-scarcity open future. Just
> like people should assume Google is a division of the NSA and/or CIA.
> :-) An impossible task? Well, consider it more like a creative
> challenge. :-) "
>
> Some recent stuff I've written along that line, too:
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html
>
> I'm not saying that, say, the current airport gropedowns and irradiation
> are not a problem. I've already turned down chances to go and talk at
> two conferences in the past year (where someone else would pay my way)
> because it would entail flying. I think the security theater there is an
> embarrassment for our society.
>
> Ultimately, this will only change when we all rise up and... *vote* for
> different policies either in the voting booth, with our dollars, or with
> our time and other resources. Even if electronic voting machines were
> rigged, we can still vote with our time and volunteerism. Let's just
> skip the whole "and now everyone shoots everyone else bit" and move
> straight "and what do we do now that the shooting is over bit?" :-)
>
> Ultimately, we need to wage the peace. :-)
>
> And ideally, that is what open manufacturing, FOSS, and so on as a broad
> movement is mostly doing. :-)
> "Study Reports On Debian Governance, Social Organization"
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/14/1349202
>
> I don't think an elite is that worried about, say, 3D printers printing
> out handguns or even DIY-Bio making disease stuff, because it all just
> justifies a stronger national security state, which means their role in
> this world is strengthened further.
>
> From that Huffington Post article:
> "Chertoff, who is a frequent guest on cable news, often touts security
> proposals and technologies that align with the interests of or are
> manufactured by his clients. He recently told CNBC that he'd like to see
> "more investment in bio-security" because "I think we are beginning to
> lag a little behind in terms of being able to respond to biological
> threats." The Chertoff Group has invested in BioNeutral, a biotech
> startup based in New Jersey that is developing technology to combat
> dangerous microorganisms. In a relatively rare disclosure, Chertoff
> acknowledged in the interview that "we do represent companies that make
> sensors and technology of that sort.""
>
> It is only when we use all those post-scarcity technologies to build
> some positive optimistic abundant healthy alternatives with all that
> technology that we will see those forces of greed and fear fade away.
>
> And the biggest issue there is people taking ownership of their own time
> to use it for worthwhile post-scarcity ends.
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
> ====
> The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
> of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
>
Re: [Open Manufacturing] Co-Ownership for Success in Open Manufacturing (motivation)
On Nov 27, 2010 7:54 AM, "Paul D. Fernhout" <pdfernhout@kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/10 11:32 AM, Thomas Fledrich wrote:
>>> That's a great point. Equity is a big issue in any alternative social
>>> arrangement. That may be why such things tend to work best at either the
>>> very small level (the extended family or clan, or the local neighborhood
>>> that is strongly socially connected already), or the very large level (the
>>> entire society).
>>
>> Thanks, I agree on the part about the small level, but not so much
>> about the large one. My objection is that the large level is usually
>> run by an elite composed of the most power hungry people of society
>> (with a few lucky exceptions), who rely on top down hierarchical
>> structures ultimately enforced by physical force to make the rest of
>> society obey their rules.
>
> I think this is true up to a point. And that is certainly the narrative
> that both the US left and right have been pushing in various ways to
> explain our society. To the left, it is greedy elites that steal from
> the middle class and poor to enrich themselves. To the right, it is the
> lazy elites that steal from the hard working rich people, and in order
> to get elected these lazy elites give stuff to the undeserving poor who
> waste it and use it on drugs and raising more losers, and who keep
> everyone else poor and suffering by too much regulation. Or something
> like that. There is truth and falsehood on both plot lines.
>
> One issue is Manuel De Landa's point that all real systems are composed
> of both hierarchies and meshworks, so a hierarchy-only model of our
> social structure is too simplistic.
> http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm
> "Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into
> villains and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they
> are constantly turning into one another, but because in real life we
> find only mixtures and hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be
> established through theory alone but demand concrete experimentation."
>
> Another issue is that even if we have a social structure with aspects of
> an elite imposing their will on others through violence (and
> propaganda), it is only possible while most people decide to play along
> as "guards":
> http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
> and it would not work if most people decided they had enough:
> http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html
> and it is ultimately our collective mythology (about scarcity, I'd
> suggest) that holds the whole thing together:
> http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402
>
> So, really, it is our social paradigm defined by our collective
> mythology that makes it all happen. If you can change that mythology at
> all levels of the society, eventually the rest of the society will change.
>
> As I see it, frankly, only some people really enjoy engineering and
> construction (even if more might with the right chance to learn about
> it). If you want your homes to be well-built, and your cars to be
> reliable, you need to somehow get those people involved with those
> processes in a way they enjoy (that includes "Autonomy, Mastery, and
> Purpose", see 5 minutes in here).
> "RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us "
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
>
> When someone talks about "co-ownership" that gets partly at the notions
> of autonomy, mastery, and purpose that connect with motivation to do
> complex tasks. But we usually talk about it in terms of the issue of who
> gets the material rewards, which may be misleading ourselves.
>
> The same though could be said about a lot of other things we need to
> have happen in our society -- growing food, talking about social
> systems, helping the sick, raising the next generation. Not everyone at
> a certain stage in their life wants to do every thing, and some people
> like some things more than others for whatever reason. But to the extent
> these tasks involve some complex thought, feeling autonomy, mastery, and
> purpose is going to lead people to engage in them -- assuming that
> their basic material needs are already met and, as is said in that
> youtube video, essentially the issue of money is off the table because
> it is adequate (or there is a basic income, a gift economy, or
> sufficient but not excessive resource-based planning that meets basic
> needs otherwise).
>
> Neither the conventional left or conventional right have much sensible
> to say about that issue of motivation and how work is structured:
> http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
> "Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to
> divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any
> objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working."
>
> The argument over the US government buying GM was not about working
> conditions and autonomy, mastery, and purpose, even if it was supposedly
> about "jobs" (and maintaining the primacy of an income-through-jobs link
> for survival in our society for non-wealthy people).
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
> ====
> The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
> of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
>
> On 11/24/10 11:32 AM, Thomas Fledrich wrote:
>>> That's a great point. Equity is a big issue in any alternative social
>>> arrangement. That may be why such things tend to work best at either the
>>> very small level (the extended family or clan, or the local neighborhood
>>> that is strongly socially connected already), or the very large level (the
>>> entire society).
>>
>> Thanks, I agree on the part about the small level, but not so much
>> about the large one. My objection is that the large level is usually
>> run by an elite composed of the most power hungry people of society
>> (with a few lucky exceptions), who rely on top down hierarchical
>> structures ultimately enforced by physical force to make the rest of
>> society obey their rules.
>
> I think this is true up to a point. And that is certainly the narrative
> that both the US left and right have been pushing in various ways to
> explain our society. To the left, it is greedy elites that steal from
> the middle class and poor to enrich themselves. To the right, it is the
> lazy elites that steal from the hard working rich people, and in order
> to get elected these lazy elites give stuff to the undeserving poor who
> waste it and use it on drugs and raising more losers, and who keep
> everyone else poor and suffering by too much regulation. Or something
> like that. There is truth and falsehood on both plot lines.
>
> One issue is Manuel De Landa's point that all real systems are composed
> of both hierarchies and meshworks, so a hierarchy-only model of our
> social structure is too simplistic.
> http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm
> "Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into
> villains and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they
> are constantly turning into one another, but because in real life we
> find only mixtures and hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be
> established through theory alone but demand concrete experimentation."
>
> Another issue is that even if we have a social structure with aspects of
> an elite imposing their will on others through violence (and
> propaganda), it is only possible while most people decide to play along
> as "guards":
> http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
> and it would not work if most people decided they had enough:
> http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html
> and it is ultimately our collective mythology (about scarcity, I'd
> suggest) that holds the whole thing together:
> http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402
>
> So, really, it is our social paradigm defined by our collective
> mythology that makes it all happen. If you can change that mythology at
> all levels of the society, eventually the rest of the society will change.
>
> As I see it, frankly, only some people really enjoy engineering and
> construction (even if more might with the right chance to learn about
> it). If you want your homes to be well-built, and your cars to be
> reliable, you need to somehow get those people involved with those
> processes in a way they enjoy (that includes "Autonomy, Mastery, and
> Purpose", see 5 minutes in here).
> "RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us "
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
>
> When someone talks about "co-ownership" that gets partly at the notions
> of autonomy, mastery, and purpose that connect with motivation to do
> complex tasks. But we usually talk about it in terms of the issue of who
> gets the material rewards, which may be misleading ourselves.
>
> The same though could be said about a lot of other things we need to
> have happen in our society -- growing food, talking about social
> systems, helping the sick, raising the next generation. Not everyone at
> a certain stage in their life wants to do every thing, and some people
> like some things more than others for whatever reason. But to the extent
> these tasks involve some complex thought, feeling autonomy, mastery, and
> purpose is going to lead people to engage in them -- assuming that
> their basic material needs are already met and, as is said in that
> youtube video, essentially the issue of money is off the table because
> it is adequate (or there is a basic income, a gift economy, or
> sufficient but not excessive resource-based planning that meets basic
> needs otherwise).
>
> Neither the conventional left or conventional right have much sensible
> to say about that issue of motivation and how work is structured:
> http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
> "Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to
> divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any
> objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working."
>
> The argument over the US government buying GM was not about working
> conditions and autonomy, mastery, and purpose, even if it was supposedly
> about "jobs" (and maintaining the primacy of an income-through-jobs link
> for survival in our society for non-wealthy people).
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
> ====
> The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
> of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
>
Friday, November 26, 2010
Re: NanoNews-Now Digest #315 Ready
On Nov 26, 2010 3:48 PM, "Nanotechnology Now" <newsletter@nanotech-now.com> wrote:
Re: [thingiverse] Re: [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: [MakerBot] Re: STL files for Atomic Force Microscope
You can use Tape
"
first isolated individual graphene planes by using Scotch tape.[13]
...
Graphene biodevices
Graphene's modifiable chemistry, large surface area, atomic thickness and molecularly-gatable structure make antibody-functionalized graphene sheets excellent candidates for mammalian and microbial detection and diagnosis devices.[132]
The most ambitious biological application of graphene is for rapid, inexpensive electronic DNA sequencing. Integration of graphene (thickness of 0.34 nm) layers as nanoelectrodes into a nanopore[133] can solve one of the bottleneck issues of nanopore-based single-molecule DNA sequencing.
"
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Lee Nelson wrote:Yes, but if you want to read DNA via AFM, you should put it on a
> Yes putting it on a flatbed scanner and/or having a webcam should be
> included. But that will not read the basepairs like the new "DNA Pores"
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070511100913.htm
>
> http://www.aip.org/png/2006/254.htm
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=dna+pore
graphite or gold surface:
http://bio.cc/Bioinformics/papers/AFM-DNA-sequencing/
networked printers
Digital Trends » Print 2.0: Must-have technologies for your next printer
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Re: Nanoengineer
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Lee Nelson <technologiclee@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a place on the wiki for this roadmap? Will we use the old wiki?
>
> I advocate using a short (2-4 week) sprint cycle - like they used to. They
> always seemed to make a lot of progress between sprints.
I'd like to suggest creating a new sprint backlog for this group
(which everyone can comment on) and not put a time limit on it. It
will take everyone a while to set up a development environment, get
oriented with the code and start productive coding work.
Here is a quick, short list of the things I believe should be
considered for the 1st sprint:
1. Wiki pages for setting up a NE1 developer's environment for
Windows, MacOSX and Linux. Currently we have these wiki page, but they
need to be updated:
http://nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=NE1_Build_and_Release_System_Overview
2. Epydoc install/config on the server to (re)generate NE1 API docs like these:
http://www.nanoengineer-1.com/snapshots/NE1_Documentation/
3. Updated wiki pages for creating NE1 install packages for Windows,
MacOSX and Linux.
4. Set up Bugzilla for NE1 on server (I'm working on this with Bryan
-- stay tuned).
5. Update (and clean up) the NE1 Wiki with new info (i.e. where to get
the code, setting up a NE1 dev environment, etc.) . I've started this,
but more to be done.
These 5 projects would be a good start for the first sprint.
>
> They used Wind IDE for development.
> http://www.nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?search=IDE&go=Go
We used Wing IDE (www.wingware.com). The Personal Edition is $35 and
worth it. I use the Professional Edition and love it.
>
> Since Netbeans has a python plugin, I think netbeans should be used (it is
> free)
> http://www.google.com/search?q=netbeans
I'll take a look at NetBeans. Can you create a "Getting Started with
NetBeans IDE" wiki page explaining what module(s)/plugin(s) to
download and any relevant configuration info.
>
>
> A linux installer/ package is needed to make NE1 accessible to the linux
> crowd.
> There is a new version of BitRock Install builder available.
> http://bitrock.com/
Agreed.
>
> I see there was some change to the build requirements notes regarding QT,
> PyQt and Sip. This is really the only part that prevents a linux install. I
> see the build for Mac but not linux on this Page
> http://nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=PreReq_Builds
Maybe Thomas could add something about building NE1 for Fedora on that page?
>
> There was a DNA origami Feature. That should be returned.
The DNA Origami feature was superseded by "Build DNA" and all
sub-commands. Tom Moore actually designed a new origami structure
using NE1 that was eventually synthesized by Paul Rothemund. It was
painful for Tom since NE1 is so slow with large models. It is
imperative to get the graphics optimization in NE1 working (more on
that later).
>
> The movie feature should make AVIs, preferably without needing POV-Ray and
> Picture2AVI as separate programs
This is a feature request. Add it here:
http://www.nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Feature_requests#Other_renderers
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Tom wrote:
>>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> It's good to see some interest in NE1 again. Do you have any sort of road
>> map for development yet?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Tom
>
>
--
-----------------
Mark Sims
> Is there a place on the wiki for this roadmap? Will we use the old wiki?
>
> I advocate using a short (2-4 week) sprint cycle - like they used to. They
> always seemed to make a lot of progress between sprints.
I'd like to suggest creating a new sprint backlog for this group
(which everyone can comment on) and not put a time limit on it. It
will take everyone a while to set up a development environment, get
oriented with the code and start productive coding work.
Here is a quick, short list of the things I believe should be
considered for the 1st sprint:
1. Wiki pages for setting up a NE1 developer's environment for
Windows, MacOSX and Linux. Currently we have these wiki page, but they
need to be updated:
http://nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=NE1_Build_and_Release_System_Overview
2. Epydoc install/config on the server to (re)generate NE1 API docs like these:
http://www.nanoengineer-1.com/snapshots/NE1_Documentation/
3. Updated wiki pages for creating NE1 install packages for Windows,
MacOSX and Linux.
4. Set up Bugzilla for NE1 on server (I'm working on this with Bryan
-- stay tuned).
5. Update (and clean up) the NE1 Wiki with new info (i.e. where to get
the code, setting up a NE1 dev environment, etc.) . I've started this,
but more to be done.
These 5 projects would be a good start for the first sprint.
>
> They used Wind IDE for development.
> http://www.nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?search=IDE&go=Go
We used Wing IDE (www.wingware.com). The Personal Edition is $35 and
worth it. I use the Professional Edition and love it.
>
> Since Netbeans has a python plugin, I think netbeans should be used (it is
> free)
> http://www.google.com/search?q=netbeans
I'll take a look at NetBeans. Can you create a "Getting Started with
NetBeans IDE" wiki page explaining what module(s)/plugin(s) to
download and any relevant configuration info.
>
>
> A linux installer/ package is needed to make NE1 accessible to the linux
> crowd.
> There is a new version of BitRock Install builder available.
> http://bitrock.com/
Agreed.
>
> I see there was some change to the build requirements notes regarding QT,
> PyQt and Sip. This is really the only part that prevents a linux install. I
> see the build for Mac but not linux on this Page
> http://nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=PreReq_Builds
Maybe Thomas could add something about building NE1 for Fedora on that page?
>
> There was a DNA origami Feature. That should be returned.
The DNA Origami feature was superseded by "Build DNA" and all
sub-commands. Tom Moore actually designed a new origami structure
using NE1 that was eventually synthesized by Paul Rothemund. It was
painful for Tom since NE1 is so slow with large models. It is
imperative to get the graphics optimization in NE1 working (more on
that later).
>
> The movie feature should make AVIs, preferably without needing POV-Ray and
> Picture2AVI as separate programs
This is a feature request. Add it here:
http://www.nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Feature_requests#Other_renderers
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Tom wrote:
>>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> It's good to see some interest in NE1 again. Do you have any sort of road
>> map for development yet?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Tom
>
>
--
-----------------
Mark Sims
Gromacs + Blender
Here is Tom over at Machine Phase blazing a trail of scientific investigation by using Gromacs and Blender.
http://machine-phase.blogspot.com/2010/09/pillared-graphene.html
Re: Nanoengineer
Is there a place on the wiki for this roadmap? Will we use the old wiki?
I advocate using a short (2-4 week) sprint cycle - like they used to. They always seemed to make a lot of progress between sprints.
They used Wind IDE for development.
http://www.nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?search=IDE&go=Go
Since Netbeans has a python plugin, I think netbeans should be used (it is free)
http://www.google.com/search?q=netbeans
A linux installer/ package is needed to make NE1 accessible to the linux crowd.
There is a new version of BitRock Install builder available.
http://bitrock.com/
I see there was some change to the build requirements notes regarding QT, PyQt and Sip. This is really the only part that prevents a linux install. I see the build for Mac but not linux on this Page
http://nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=PreReq_Builds
There was a DNA origami Feature. That should be returned.
The movie feature should make AVIs, preferably without needing POV-Ray and Picture2AVI as separate programs
I advocate using a short (2-4 week) sprint cycle - like they used to. They always seemed to make a lot of progress between sprints.
They used Wind IDE for development.
http://www.nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?search=IDE&go=Go
Since Netbeans has a python plugin, I think netbeans should be used (it is free)
http://www.google.com/search?q=netbeans
A linux installer/ package is needed to make NE1 accessible to the linux crowd.
There is a new version of BitRock Install builder available.
http://bitrock.com/
I see there was some change to the build requirements notes regarding QT, PyQt and Sip. This is really the only part that prevents a linux install. I see the build for Mac but not linux on this Page
http://nanoengineer-1.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=PreReq_Builds
There was a DNA origami Feature. That should be returned.
The movie feature should make AVIs, preferably without needing POV-Ray and Picture2AVI as separate programs
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Tom <mooreth42@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Guys,
It's good to see some interest in NE1 again. Do you have any sort of road map for development yet?
Best,
Tom
Fwd: IRC channel again
Using Chatzilla,
From the menu, select
IRC -> Join Channel
then enter #hplusroadmap
From the menu, select
IRC -> Join Channel
then enter #hplusroadmap
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: IRC channel again
To: nanoengineer-dev@googlegroups.com, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
channel that he's talking about- and where a lot of ne-1 related
discussion has occured, is:
#hplusroadmap
irc.freenode.net
firefox users: i recommend "chatzilla" and then
irc://irc.freenode.net/#hplusroadmap
everyone else: irssi?
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: IRC channel again
To: nanoengineer-dev@googlegroups.com, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Lee Nelson wrote:
> Yes, I can participate in the H+ Roadmap IRC channel again. (If I can do it
> from windows for now). Yes I will discuss linux installs of NE-1 with
> people, Yes I will continue to try to package NE-1 for Ubuntu.
Thanks for reviving this old thread. For everyone else, the IRC> Yes, I can participate in the H+ Roadmap IRC channel again. (If I can do it
> from windows for now). Yes I will discuss linux installs of NE-1 with
> people, Yes I will continue to try to package NE-1 for Ubuntu.
channel that he's talking about- and where a lot of ne-1 related
discussion has occured, is:
#hplusroadmap
irc.freenode.net
firefox users: i recommend "chatzilla" and then
irc://irc.freenode.net/#hplusroadmap
everyone else: irssi?
Re: Nanoengineer
Hi Guys,
It's good to see some interest in NE1 again. Do you have any sort of road map for development yet?
Best,
Tom
It's good to see some interest in NE1 again. Do you have any sort of road map for development yet?
Best,
Tom
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Lee Nelson wrote:Right. Nanorex has closed their doors. I pinged Mark and asked if I
> Great Bryan. does this mean that you are the official NE-1 maintainer now -
could help make this happen, so he's letting me run with this.
Heh. Lee, how did you think I spontaneously solved your ne-1 python
> or is this a fork? I did not realize that you were active with NE-1.
problems last year? On the spot, without a reference- over at your
house? Actually I was just winging that.. but yeah, that's how you and
I met I think.
Tom & Thomas:
Re: IRC channel again
Yes, I can participate in the H+ Roadmap IRC channel again. (If I can do it from windows for now). Yes I will discuss linux installs of NE-1 with people, Yes I will continue to try to package NE-1 for Ubuntu.
http://www.google.com/search?q=technologiclee+nanoengineer
Thanks for keeping me in mind.
http://www.google.com/search?q=technologiclee+nanoengineer
Thanks for keeping me in mind.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Lee,
After H+ Summit 2010 and my presentation (it went OK), there have been
some more people in #hplusroadmap - a few of them are interested in
working on Nanoengineer1 and are fairly serious about it. I was
wondering if I could get you back in there so that you can talk about
your experiences with installation nightmares etc.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Re: Nanoengineer
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Lee Nelson wrote:
> Great Bryan. does this mean that you are the official NE-1 maintainer now -
> Great Bryan. does this mean that you are the official NE-1 maintainer now -
Right. Nanorex has closed their doors. I pinged Mark and asked if I
could help make this happen, so he's letting me run with this.
> or is this a fork? I did not realize that you were active with NE-1.
Heh. Lee, how did you think I spontaneously solved your ne-1 python
problems last year? On the spot, without a reference- over at your
house? Actually I was just winging that.. but yeah, that's how you and
I met I think.
Tom & Thomas:
http://diyhpl.us/cgit/nanoengineer
git clone git://diyhpl.us/nanoengineer
http://groups.google.com/group/nanoengineer-dev
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Fwd: Nanoengineer
Bryan, Tom, Thomas
Great Bryan. does this mean that you are the official NE-1 maintainer now - or is this a fork? I did not realize that you were active with NE-1.
Tom was the first person I saw use NE-1.
http://machine-phase.blogspot.com/
Thomas was packaging NE-1 for fedora.
http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/OxMZLboVlcHlFDIaa4yo
Great Bryan. does this mean that you are the official NE-1 maintainer now - or is this a fork? I did not realize that you were active with NE-1.
Tom was the first person I saw use NE-1.
http://machine-phase.blogspot.com/
Thomas was packaging NE-1 for fedora.
http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/OxMZLboVlcHlFDIaa4yo
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Subject: Nanoengineer
To: Lee Nelson <technologiclee@gmail.com>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Hey Lee,
I have been able to acquire the development repository for ne-1.
http://diyhpl.us/cgit/nanoengineer
git clone git://diyhpl.us/nanoengineer
I'll be maintaining the project from now on. My next step is to
acquire and deploy the original bugzilla database that Nanorex was
using. You should subscribe to the -dev mailing list:
http://groups.google.com/group/nanoengineer-dev
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Subject: Nanoengineer
To: Lee Nelson <technologiclee@gmail.com>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Hey Lee,
I have been able to acquire the development repository for ne-1.
http://diyhpl.us/cgit/nanoengineer
git clone git://diyhpl.us/nanoengineer
I'll be maintaining the project from now on. My next step is to
acquire and deploy the original bugzilla database that Nanorex was
using. You should subscribe to the -dev mailing list:
http://groups.google.com/group/nanoengineer-dev
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Fwd: [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: [MakerBot] Re: STL files for Atomic Force Microscope
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lee Nelson <technologiclee@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: [MakerBot] Re: STL files for Atomic Force Microscope
To: openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com
Cc: diybio <diybio@googlegroups.com>, thingiverse@googlegroups.com
I would like to know the status of the printable AFM.
Has anyone from one of our groups made one?
I searched Thingiverse for "AFM" with no results.
I will try to enter the .stl files into Thingiverse.
From: Lee Nelson <technologiclee@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: [MakerBot] Re: STL files for Atomic Force Microscope
To: openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com
Cc: diybio <diybio@googlegroups.com>, thingiverse@googlegroups.com
I would like to know the status of the printable AFM.
Has anyone from one of our groups made one?
I searched Thingiverse for "AFM" with no results.
I will try to enter the .stl files into Thingiverse.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik de Bruijn <erikdebruijn1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:42 AM
Subject: [MakerBot] Re: STL files for Atomic Force Microscope
To: MakerBot Operators <makerbot@googlegroups.com>
--I sent several requests to the authors of that paper to allow me to
include this on Thingiverse. For one, to attract attention to the fact
that we can push the envelope towards a smaller scale (Plenty of room
there... someone once said!), the second reason is to help further
democratize the toolchain for nano-scale manipulation. Many of these
things can be done with piezzo buzzers and some effort, best practices
should be shared to be able to do this with simple means.
The e-mail I got back from prof. Gaub's colleague:
========
Nice to know that you are interested in our Plastic-AFM design. You
are welcome to include it in your database if you think that it might
be useful for your needs but before some information/premonition. I
assume that you are aware that the instruction is meant for people
that already have some background in the field of scanning probe
microscopy. Due to limited manpower we cannot give you support on
general AFM issues like handling, calibrating routines, etc. and
furthermore we will not be able to answer specific questions to your
community members and ask you not to use the gaub@... email address as
reference.
The listed components are only for a lateral movable AFM-head meant
for single-molecule force spectroscopy and no controller-electronics
and software comes along since we use modified commercial products
from the high-end sector for this purpose and assume that users know
how to implement a low-cost alternative (e.g. based on I/O cards and
Labview) that suits their needs. To do AFM imaging one has to combine
it with a x-y-Piezo scanner and the cost per AFM head stays still in
the regime of some thousand Euros.
So if you are still interested feel free to use the design, print/
order the parts and have fun getting a start in the Nano-World.
Regards,
Stefan Stahl
======
I haven't taken the time do put the data on Thingiverse yet, so anyone
feel free to do it.
Erik
http://www.erikdebruijn.nl/
On Jun 15, 5:55 pm, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Jerry Isdale wrote:
> > Referred to here from Fabaloo article (http://fabbaloo.com/blog/
> > 2010/6/14/do-you-need-an-atomic-force-microscope.html) that notes the
> > full paper costs $ (euros) but the above page gives the basics.
>
> http://designfiles.org/papers/Print%20your%20atomic%20force%20microsc...
>
> Other stuff there might be of general interest:http://designfiles.org/papers/
>
> - Bryanhttp://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to makerbot@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
makerbot+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
- Bryan
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
new chips
The high pass will push 28 nanometers of Snapdragon chips The power consumption is reduced by 75% | electronics-tech.com
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
3rd nanostructures
World first to provide building blocks for new nanotechnology devices
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
Moss Mat
Bringing the Forest to the Bathroom with the Moss Mat : TreeHugger
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
Permaculture Shower
Phyto-Purification Shower Filters Gray-Water with Grass : TreeHugger
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
Monday, November 22, 2010
Re: Fwd: [Open Manufacturing] Re: Nanoengineer-1 Software
Thank you for your reply. You are one of the few people I have found in the world with an interest in Nanoengineer-1.
I am an engineer. My initial exposure was Tom Moore's blog http://machine-phase.blogspot.com/ This is the logical conclusion of our present technology. First I want to verify that NE1 reflects accurate results. Which I will be posting here. http://leenelsonengineer.blogspot.com/ While i continue to learn about packaging and programming I will use Windows to make some basic tests and have something to show for my efforts other than error codes. I want to see this software or something like it become part of a standard CAD package. The project has been idle for too long. It needs to be forked and continued, or rewritten.
I am also sending this to my blog - as it is engineering related. (opt out available -address not posted) Perhaps someone will see it and heed the call. http://technologiclee.blogspot.com/
Please keep me posted about any nanoengineering software.
Thanks,
lee nelson
I am an engineer. My initial exposure was Tom Moore's blog http://machine-phase.blogspot.com/ This is the logical conclusion of our present technology. First I want to verify that NE1 reflects accurate results. Which I will be posting here. http://leenelsonengineer.blogspot.com/ While i continue to learn about packaging and programming I will use Windows to make some basic tests and have something to show for my efforts other than error codes. I want to see this software or something like it become part of a standard CAD package. The project has been idle for too long. It needs to be forked and continued, or rewritten.
I am also sending this to my blog - as it is engineering related. (opt out available -address not posted) Perhaps someone will see it and heed the call. http://technologiclee.blogspot.com/
Please keep me posted about any nanoengineering software.
Thanks,
lee nelson
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:46 PM,
Hi Lee,
Sorry it took so long to respond, I've been busy with other things.
There are several backend simulators that NE-1 supports. My NE-1
package has a requirement on the Free Software simulator package that's
available in Fedora, gromacs. During my package testing I confirmed
that performing energy minimization on a simple molecule worked.
As for NE-1 itself, I tried it again on F-13 recently and the GUI hangs
on startup. For now I'm going to withdraw the Fedora review request for
my NE-1 package since it's clear that upstream needs to stabilize before
the software is ready for wider distribution. Unfortunately upstream is
currently dormant.
I'll leave my packages accessible on my website so that if upstream is
revived and stabilizes we'll have a good starting point for Fedora
integration.
BTW, I'm curious: what's your background? What got you interested in
NanoEngineer-1?
> Thomas,
>
> Does the Simulator for NE-1 work in Fedora?
> I have the main program working, but it can not find a .so file in Ubuntu
>
> thanks,
> lee
>
>
>
>
> Here are my notes on the nanohive-1 install
>
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AcY64lRR9IiPZGMyNjg4OXhfMTQ5ZGpyd2dmZ2g&hl=en
Bloging about bloging tools
Add-on Search Results for blogger :: Add-ons for Firefox
This is using
ScribeFire Next by cfinke
from a desktop. I like it
Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
I had joined some email lists like this sci.electronics.design Google group. Most of them seem to be off topic. Can you suggest some groups with quality content?
On Nov 22, 2010 9:00 PM, "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <mailer-daemon@google.com> wrote:
> Hello Lee Nelson <technologiclee@gmail.com>,
>
> We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (noreply) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post:
>
> * You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
> * The owner of the group may have removed this group.
> * You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post.
> * This group may not be open to posting.
>
> If you have questions related to this or any other Google Group, visit the Help Center at http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=ia.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Google Groups
>
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
>
> Received: by 10.213.114.137 with SMTP id e9mr691784ebq.7.1290481234022;
> Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:34 -0800 (PST)
> Received: by 10.213.114.137 with SMTP id e9mr691783ebq.7.1290481233990;
> Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:33 -0800 (PST)
> Return-Path: <technologiclee@gmail.com>
> Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44])
> by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n23si126758fam.9.2010.11.22.19.00.32;
> Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:32 -0800 (PST)
> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of technologiclee@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.44;
> Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of technologiclee@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=technologiclee@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com
> Received: by mail-fx0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 3so5461556fxm.3
> for <noreply@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:32 -0800 (PST)
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
> d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
> h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:received
> :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
> bh=HLu9pfX9aZFVLQxbVYFynz3MemQIiZ2DKoJlqcNwP2w=;
> b=RZ9t/tGW8fMl4fRxwsGmhlrP2NssIgDifV6bLbGuN4Oe2umDkUD+aMF3d2l8APS2x/
> r+/BOW4uPdadiu0rbBJRKYsAPSjOlwOwvo/geMW8pIRLUPZ0tLTwXNRRS9Fgj3lJ7PO8
> DSrGv3Ned/XRk/qSsuU1NjdsMFJvrleGRofng=
> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
> d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
> h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
> :content-type;
> b=LSzQ5UvtUz/r1uvVIquKMc3NWAJMv2yGtL0aFULHxjSFnmZ1QBhy7z9TPWcvwUxjAI
> iMho92hEIjygxF29XKbfHu0Zz8sPSdN0y73OpkC4i2aF/p3YkvfQDsxnaKS3TdUkV9gA
> jlY1qOIbcbv3/raweRfzyen722+WD86PWJLfE=
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Received: by 10.223.116.9 with SMTP id k9mr2663117faq.124.1290481232915; Mon,
> 22 Nov 2010 19:00:32 -0800 (PST)
> Received: by 10.204.121.84 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:32 -0800 (PST)
> Received: by 10.204.121.84 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:32 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <000e0cd32e985766bc0495af0b09@google.com>
> References: <000e0cd32e985766bc0495af0b09@google.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:00:32 -0600
> Message-ID: <AANLkTim8OBJ+_94RbugMaXhHrtTshoX-xMLs_zwFq3oK@mail.gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: sci.electronics.design - 26 new messages in 9 topics - digest
> From: Lee Nelson <technologiclee@gmail.com>
> To: "sci.electronics.design group" <noreply@googlegroups.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502e4857a2d410495af9306
>
> Can anyone recommend a good mailing list about electronics design?
> Hello Lee Nelson <technologiclee@gmail.com>,
>
> We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (noreply) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post:
>
> * You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
> * The owner of the group may have removed this group.
> * You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post.
> * This group may not be open to posting.
>
> If you have questions related to this or any other Google Group, visit the Help Center at http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=ia.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Google Groups
>
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
>
> Received: by 10.213.114.137 with SMTP id e9mr691784ebq.7.1290481234022;
> Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:34 -0800 (PST)
> Received: by 10.213.114.137 with SMTP id e9mr691783ebq.7.1290481233990;
> Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:33 -0800 (PST)
> Return-Path: <technologiclee@gmail.com>
> Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44])
> by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n23si126758fam.9.2010.11.22.19.00.32;
> Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:32 -0800 (PST)
> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of technologiclee@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.44;
> Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of technologiclee@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=technologiclee@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com
> Received: by mail-fx0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 3so5461556fxm.3
> for <noreply@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:32 -0800 (PST)
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
> d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
> h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:received
> :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
> bh=HLu9pfX9aZFVLQxbVYFynz3MemQIiZ2DKoJlqcNwP2w=;
> b=RZ9t/tGW8fMl4fRxwsGmhlrP2NssIgDifV6bLbGuN4Oe2umDkUD+aMF3d2l8APS2x/
> r+/BOW4uPdadiu0rbBJRKYsAPSjOlwOwvo/geMW8pIRLUPZ0tLTwXNRRS9Fgj3lJ7PO8
> DSrGv3Ned/XRk/qSsuU1NjdsMFJvrleGRofng=
> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
> d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
> h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
> :content-type;
> b=LSzQ5UvtUz/r1uvVIquKMc3NWAJMv2yGtL0aFULHxjSFnmZ1QBhy7z9TPWcvwUxjAI
> iMho92hEIjygxF29XKbfHu0Zz8sPSdN0y73OpkC4i2aF/p3YkvfQDsxnaKS3TdUkV9gA
> jlY1qOIbcbv3/raweRfzyen722+WD86PWJLfE=
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Received: by 10.223.116.9 with SMTP id k9mr2663117faq.124.1290481232915; Mon,
> 22 Nov 2010 19:00:32 -0800 (PST)
> Received: by 10.204.121.84 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:32 -0800 (PST)
> Received: by 10.204.121.84 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:00:32 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <000e0cd32e985766bc0495af0b09@google.com>
> References: <000e0cd32e985766bc0495af0b09@google.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:00:32 -0600
> Message-ID: <AANLkTim8OBJ+_94RbugMaXhHrtTshoX-xMLs_zwFq3oK@mail.gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: sci.electronics.design - 26 new messages in 9 topics - digest
> From: Lee Nelson <technologiclee@gmail.com>
> To: "sci.electronics.design group" <noreply@googlegroups.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502e4857a2d410495af9306
>
> Can anyone recommend a good mailing list about electronics design?
Re: Anthony Atala on growing organs (K21st - Essential 21st Century Knowledge)
On Nov 22, 2010 9:00 AM, "Newsfeed to Email Gateway" <emlynoregan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony Atala on growing organs (11/22/10 12:00:40 UTC)
> Link: http://k21st.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/anthony-atala-on-growing-organs/
>
> <p>Anthony Atala’s state-of-the-art lab grows human organs —
> from muscles to blood vessels to bladders, and more. At TEDMED, he showed
> footage of his bio-engineers working with some of its sci-fi gizmos,
> including an oven-like bioreactor (preheat to 98.6 F) and a machine that
> “prints” human tissue.<br />
> Anthony Atala asks, “Can we grow organs instead of transplanting
> them?” His lab at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine
> is doing just that — engineering tissues and whole organs..</p>
> <p><span style="text-align: center; display: block;"><a
> href="http://k21st.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/anthony-atala-on-growing-organs/"><img
> alt="" src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/7SfRgg9botI/2.jpg" /></a></span></p>
> <br /> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/comments/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/delicious/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gofacebook/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/facebook/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gotwitter/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/twitter/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/stumble/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/digg/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/" /></a>
> <a href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/reddit/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <img alt="" border="0" height="1"
> src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=k21st.wordpress.com&blog=4059238&post=2707&subd=k21st&ref=&feed=1"
> width="1" />
>
>
> Free Newsfeed to Email gateway at www.productx.net
> Unsubscribe:
> http://www.productx.net/deletersssub2?code=8e7f537b-0f07-492b-8004-3321e6072367
>
> Anthony Atala on growing organs (11/22/10 12:00:40 UTC)
> Link: http://k21st.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/anthony-atala-on-growing-organs/
>
> <p>Anthony Atala’s state-of-the-art lab grows human organs —
> from muscles to blood vessels to bladders, and more. At TEDMED, he showed
> footage of his bio-engineers working with some of its sci-fi gizmos,
> including an oven-like bioreactor (preheat to 98.6 F) and a machine that
> “prints” human tissue.<br />
> Anthony Atala asks, “Can we grow organs instead of transplanting
> them?” His lab at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine
> is doing just that — engineering tissues and whole organs..</p>
> <p><span style="text-align: center; display: block;"><a
> href="http://k21st.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/anthony-atala-on-growing-organs/"><img
> alt="" src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/7SfRgg9botI/2.jpg" /></a></span></p>
> <br /> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/comments/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/delicious/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gofacebook/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/facebook/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gotwitter/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/twitter/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/stumble/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <a
> href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/digg/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/" /></a>
> <a href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> rel="nofollow"><img alt="" border="0"
> src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/reddit/k21st.wordpress.com/2707/"
> /></a> <img alt="" border="0" height="1"
> src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=k21st.wordpress.com&blog=4059238&post=2707&subd=k21st&ref=&feed=1"
> width="1" />
>
>
> Free Newsfeed to Email gateway at www.productx.net
> Unsubscribe:
> http://www.productx.net/deletersssub2?code=8e7f537b-0f07-492b-8004-3321e6072367
>
Sunday, November 21, 2010
FireFox for android
Saturday, November 20, 2010
symbiotic
Whip-tailed bacteria could 'tweet' to nanobots - New Scientist - New Scientist
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
Combination Scanner
Short Sharp Science: 'Hybrid' medical scanner spots tumours in a snap
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
Friday, November 19, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Nanoparticles in Respiratory System
What Happens When You Breathe In Nanoparticles - Technology Review
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
Antiatom Trap
CBC News - Technology & Science - Antimatter atoms held captive by physicists
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
