http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:34:18 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/24/073418.php Howard Lovy National Public Radio's Noah Adams interviewed Science Friday's Ira Flatow on NPR's Day to Day program and, frankly, it was a bit of a disappointment. I expect better from public radio.It started out as a kind of lite-'n'-brite feature about the amazing buff and shine you get when you nanowax your car -- "nanoparticles that are so small they actually fill in the tiny nicks and scratches" -- and that's OK. Then, after tossing out some info on an artificial retina that produces "16 channels of differentiation" that lets the blind "tell the difference between a knife and a plate, where they couldn't before," they launched into a strange mix of fiction and nonfiction.When Adams brought up Michael Crichton's "Prey," which he described as "nanotechnology gone wild" with "swarms going after me," Flatow missed an opportunity to differentiate between the far-off (or far-fetched) fear of the Crichton variety and the more-legitimate near-term ones. Flatow, without skipping a beat, answered the "Prey" comment with, "This is the deep fear that many people have about nanotechnology." He described the concerns over nanoparticles and toxicity, as if the Crichton book had anything to do with it.Then, Flatow just got his facts wrong when he asserted that the UK's Royal Society recommended cosmetics that contain nanoparticles be taken off the market.In reality, the Royal Society said in its recently released report, that the nanosized titanium dioxide inside some brands of sunscreen had already been given a favorable recommendation by the European Commission's scientific safety advisory committee, so no action needs to be taken there.Meanwhile, the Society asked the cosmetic companies that use nanoscale zinc oxide to provide details on how they reached the conclusion that they're safe. The cosmetic companies have not done that, much to the annoyance of some nanotech-watchers in Britain, but the Society has made no recommendation that anything be taken off the market.Flatow was confusing the Royal Society with the radical, headline-seeking, anti-technology ETC Group, which long ago recommended taking sunscreen and cosmetics off the shelves.Chalk up another victory for the ETC Group, which has again proved that if you repeat selective information over and over again, it not only magically becomes "the truth," it's even placed in the mouths of others. I expect most of the mainstream media to parrot the ETC Group line and leave its assumptions unchallenged, but I do expect better from NPR.NanoBot Backgrounder WSJ is down with nano Please send fear in lieu of facts ETC Group Reacts Ruff on the environment Sci/Tech20208@blogcritics.org Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:34:18 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/03/232901.php Howard Lovy"Science and religion don't mix, and never will."Plant me firmly on "future doesn't need us" ground if this is a representative opinion among all of nanotechnology's thought leaders.True science is ruled by humility, since a scientist above all is aware of how vast is his deficit of knowledge. A scientist who is ruled by arrogance, prejudice and caricature of what he does not understand is not practicing science at all, but is treading into historically cataclysmic territory.And in Europe, if the past gives us any guide, the scientist who dismisses as unimportant the moral and ethical foundations of those whose lives he is allegedly improving will assuredly be shown the hammers of the Luddites.But a greater man said it better:I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries.Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.Albert EinsteinNanoBot Backgrounder The Kabbalah Nanotech Connection Culture19445@blogcritics.org Fri, 3 Sep 2004 23:29:01 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/03/001703.php Howard LovyPresident Bush, in his Republican National Convention speech tonight, promised to improve science and math education if he's elected to another term:In this time of change, most new jobs are filled by people with at least two years of college, yet only about one in four students gets there. In our high schools, we will fund early intervention programs to help students at risk. We will place a new focus on math and science. As we make progress, we will require a rigorous exam before graduation.Many U.S. educators and science policymakers have warned that the sorry state of science education in this country will eventually come back to bite us in an inability to compete with Europe and Asia.Corporate leaders in the United States understand this, too, and that's why you're seeing more labs open up overseas. Nani Beccalli, president of Europe, Middle East and Africa for General Electric Co., said it succinctly this past June when GE opened its new technology center in Germany:"This facility will allow us to take advantage of the great intellectual capital and high education standards in Europe, particularly in the fields of science and technology, and it is a tangible sign of our long-term commitment to grow in this market."GE may be as American as Thomas Edison, but it also knows where the future might appear brighter.NanoBot Backgrounder Imagination at Work Sci/Tech19409@blogcritics.org Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:17:03 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/21/084911.php Howard Lovy You wanna read something that was left on the cutting-room floor (probably deservedly so) in my just-released report on nanostorage and nanomemory? At the risk of total humiliation, here goes:He held the dipper out to Jake. When Jake reached for it, Tick-Tock pulled it back."First, cully, tell me what you know about dipolar computers and transitive circuits," he said coldly."What ..." Jake looked toward the ventilator grille, but the golden eyes were still gone. He was beginning to think he had imagined them after all. He shifted his gaze back to the Tick-Tock Man, understanding one thing clearly; he wasn't going to get any water. He had been stupid to even dream he might. "What are dipolar computers?"In Stephen King's best-selling horror/scifi/western epic "Dark Tower" book series, the main characters come upon the apocalyptically dysfunctional city of Lud, where this "Mad Max"-style vision of the future is brought to you by out-of-control "dipolar computers." The computers, of course, outlast mankind's ability to remain civilized toward one another. So as the Luddites (yes, what else would they be called?) reverted to a comfortable state of barbarism, it was the dipolar computers that retained all the previous collected knowledge of mankind. This is a Stephen King book, so the "dipolar" turns "bipolar," and life becomes hell for humans. But that's beside the point.So, what is the point? First, pay attention to popular culture - from Stephen King to England's future king: They just might have more influence on the way any new technology is perceived and accepted than any of the Wall Street kings. Second, Stephen King probably did not pick "dipolar computers" purely out of the abyss of his imagination. In 1997, the same year in which King released "Dark Tower III: The Waste Lands," a small group of scientists got together and founded a new company, California Molecular Electronics Corp.Remember 1997? Most of the world was just beginning to learn about the Internet. CALMEC, with its talk of "molecular electronics" seemed to some to have come from a distant planet - and not only to average consumers, but also to their colleagues in the semiconductor world. What was it these folks from the future were peddling?Yes. You guessed: "Dipolar computers."Yeah, I know, but remember that Babe Ruth was also the strikeout king. A great deal of what I write thankfully never makes it beyond my iMac, much less over the bleachers. But what you get in this NanoMarkets report is the stuff that made the cut. I did most of the primary research and wrote most of the profiles on this one.NanoMarkets, by the way, is a great little company. Company pooh-bah Lawrence Gasman, a battle-hardened telecom vet, is a superb editor and I'm joined here by fellow nanowriting refugee Paul Holister.I've seen the future of memory and its name is ... well, I can't remember now. Just read the report.NanoBot Backgrounder 'Terabyte territory' Money for Memory Nanomanufacturing from the ground upUpdate: I apologize to "Dark Tower" fans who posted comments to this entry. Somebody ruined it by introducing pointless profanity and insult (I'm all for profanity with a purpose, though). I couldn't delete just that one comment for some reason, so I had to delete all of them. There was a great little thread going on, correcting me about the year in which Stephen King's "The Waste Lands, Dark Tower Book 3" (function popUp(URL,NAME) {amznwin=window.open(URL,NAME,"location=yes,scrollbars=yes,status=yes,toolbar=yes,resizable=yes,width=380,height=450,screenX=10,screenY=10,top=10,left=10");amznwin.focus();}document.open();document.write("Buy from Amazon.com");document.close();) was released. It was 1992, and not 1997 (when it was re-released). I responded that my inaccurate date was one more reason why that passage was best left on the cutting-room floor. Thank you, Dark Tower fans, for setting me straight. I recently bought a copy of "Song of Susannah The Dark Tower, Book 6" (function popUp(URL,NAME) {amznwin=window.open(URL,NAME,"location=yes,scrollbars=yes,status=yes,toolbar=yes,resizable=yes,width=380,height=450,screenX=10,screenY=10,top=10,left=10");amznwin.focus();}document.open();document.write("Buy from Amazon.com");document.close();) and I can't wait to catch up with the story of Roland and his ka-tet! Sci/Tech18902@blogcritics.org Sat, 21 Aug 2004 08:49:11 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/11/024514.php Howard Lovy I just can't thank Glenn Reynolds (aka InstaPundit) enough for his post and kind words yesterday. The response was wonderful and, well, instant.Just a few hours into my new freelance career, and offers were coming in to write for various publications. Not to mention the many, many notes I've received from supporters around the world. You all gave me reason to hope at the end of a very emotional day.I'm not going to say anything more about my departure from Small Times. I'd much rather focus on the future. If you've tried to reach me at my work address, I no longer have access to it, so please send notes to howard@lovy.com. Thank you all again for your words of encouragement.Now, it's back to my writing, but keep your eye on this site for more news and more changes. Sci/Tech17320@blogcritics.org Sun, 11 Jul 2004 02:45:14 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/16/112324.php Howard Lovy IGN.com has a descriptivereview of Nano Breaker: Buckets and buckets and buckets of blood are involved in NanoBreaker. On second thought, forget the buckets and just bring a full-ontanker. Sure, the game may call the red stuff that gushes out of theopponents "oil," but everyone knows that this game is about the gore.Take a peek at one screen and you'll know what we mean. With a combatsystem that favors combos and building up to super powers, Nano Breakeris a pure-bred hack'n'slash and lives up to the genre. We got a chanceto play it and all we can think about is blood. More here If you're wondering about the "nano" in the game (does it reallymatter?), here's how they weave it into the ... um ... plot.Apparently the nanomachines of the future go bad and begin toharvest the blood of humans and the iron of buildings in order toconstruct an army of monster machines poised to obliterate the entirehuman race. Not so good. More hereAny nano-knowledgable gamers out there who can write? I can offer nomoney for nano-themed game reviews, but I can offer you nano-fame atthe price of total loss of respect from your peers. Sendme a note if you're interested.Update: More Nano Breaker reviews can be found here and here.Related Posts Blood-suckingnanomachines Nanomation Nanoby any memes necessaryfunction popUp(URL,NAME) {amznwin=window.open(URL,NAME,"location=yes,scrollbars=yes,status=yes,toolbar=yes,resizable=yes,width=380,height=450,screenX=10,screenY=10,top=10,left=10");amznwin.focus();}document.open();document.write("Sony PlayStation 2");document.close();function popUp(URL,NAME) {amznwin=window.open(URL,NAME,"location=yes,scrollbars=yes,status=yes,toolbar=yes,resizable=yes,width=380,height=450,screenX=10,screenY=10,top=10,left=10");amznwin.focus();}document.open();document.write("Logitech Z680 5.1 Computer Speakers");document.close(); Sci/Tech15713@blogcritics.org Sun, 16 May 2004 11:23:24 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/08/112149.php Howard LovyRobert Bradbury has some good news and some bad news about the National Institutes of Health nanomedicine roadmap initiative shindig this week:The good news... The NIH really seems to understand that to make progress in nanotech one must integrate researchers from various areas of expertise. The bad news... Few if any people attending the conference have read any of the background literature on what nanotechnology or nanomedicine really involve. When I mentioned function popUp(URL,NAME) {amznwin=window.open(URL,NAME,"location=yes,scrollbars=yes,status=yes,toolbar=yes,resizable=yes,width=380,height=450,screenX=10,screenY=10,top=10,left=10");amznwin.focus();}document.open();document.write("Nanosystems");document.close(); or function popUp(URL,NAME) {amznwin=window.open(URL,NAME,"location=yes,scrollbars=yes,status=yes,toolbar=yes,resizable=yes,width=380,height=450,screenX=10,screenY=10,top=10,left=10");amznwin.focus();}document.open();document.write("Nanomedicine, Vol. I");document.close(); or function popUp(URL,NAME) {amznwin=window.open(URL,NAME,"location=yes,scrollbars=yes,status=yes,toolbar=yes,resizable=yes,width=380,height=450,screenX=10,screenY=10,top=10,left=10");amznwin.focus();}document.open();document.write("Nanomedicine, Vol. IIA");document.close();, during the interactive periods they generally were unrecognized. This seems to be consistent with the Drexler v. Smalley debate which suggests that most scientists simply have not done their homework (in terms of learning about nanotechnology). More hereRelated Posts Nanobots: Body and antibody Do no harm: Don't forget Freitas For greener planet, remove people; results may vary Culture15482@blogcritics.org Sat, 8 May 2004 11:21:49 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/25/083300.php Howard LovyBefore you call your broker with the Nanosysnews, take a look at this.It's an excerpt from Nanosys'SEC registration statement, and should berequired reading for anybody who is contemplating an investment in apublic nanotechnology company. And, remember, Nanosys is considered oneof the most-promising of all the little nano firms. When you get to thebottom, take a look at some "good news bad news." (I added the company links below, for those who want more background). Risks Related to Competition and ourIndustryWe face competition from companies in multiple industries, aswellas from the internal efforts of our current and potential partners and,if we fail to compete effectively, our business could suffer. We compete in intensely competitive markets for end userproducts.The nanotechnology-enabled products we are currently developing willcompete directly with products incorporating conventional materials andtechnologies, including traditional semiconductors manufactured on thenanoscale. We believe our potential products will face significantcompetition from existing manufacturers in our current target marketsincluding: manufacturers of substrates for time of flight massspectrometryequipment, such as Waters Corporation; manufacturers of solar cells, such as Sharp ElectronicsCorporation and BP plc; manufacturers of thin film electronics, such as SamsungElectronics Co., Ltd., NEC Corporation and Koninklijke Philips Electronics (NYSE: PHG, News, Web); and manufacturers of memory products, such as Advanced MicroDevices,Inc. and Samsung. In addition, we may also face competition from focusednanotechnology companies, such as Evident Technologies, Inc., Konarka Technologies (Profile, News, Web), Nantero, Inc., NanoHorizons, Inc., Nanosolar, Inc.,Quantum Dot Corporation (News, Profile, Web), UltraDots, Inc. and ZettaCore Inc. (News, Web) and othernewly created nanotechnology companies. Now, the good news: Nanosys is looking at a number of ways to apply itstechnology. Among them is nano-enabled memory for portable devices. Ifconsumer habits continue they way they have, current flash-memory technology will become just a memory. Nobody wants to be tieddown anymore. We want our MP3s, mobile phones and, probably in a fewyears our portable biothreat detectors, to stay with us, stay fast andstay cheap. Enter nano. The biggest nanomemory application of all might beportable gaming. Anyway, here's what Nanosys is doing.Non-Volatile Memory. We are developing nanostructures fornon-volatile memory products for anticipated use in applications suchas digital cameras, MP3 players and mobile phones. To developnon-volatile memory products, we are collaborating with Intel. Weanticipate that we would manufacture the products resulting from thesedevelopment efforts and would sell them to our collaborators or othercustomers for integration into a non-volatile memory device.Intel. Cool. Not a bad little company to collaborate with. But,then, here's the potential bad news.We may also face significant competition from our current andfuture partners, such as E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, or DuPont,Intel and Matsushita Electric Works, which are assessing thefeasibility of expanding their development and manufacturingcapabilities and portfolio of intellectual property to incorporatenanotechnology-enabled components into their end user products. If ourcurrent and future partners expand their product offerings to competedirectly with our nanotechnology-enabledproducts or actively seek to participate as vendors in thenanotechnology-enabled product market, our revenue and operatingresults could be negatively affected.After July 2004, Intel could decide that it really doesn't needNanosys Inside and just do it all in-house. When the big guys decide todo all the nano work themselves, that doesn't leave the little guyswith much except an asterisk in business history books.Related Posts: Nanotube Business 101 'Irrelevant' Chocolate in silicon's peanut butter Culture15075@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Apr 2004 08:33:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/14/133643.php Howard LovyClose followers of Howard Lovy's NanoBot know that I'm naturally attracted topeople who are considered on the fringe. Good writers are often"outsiders," themselves. But even within that crowd, I'm often anoutsider among outsiders. I explained it best in an interview I gave toNeofiles:"So, my natural inclination is to look at any issue of publicconcern --especially ones in which there appears to be a monolithic opinion -- andfind those who begin with a whole different set of assumptions orbeliefs. I've always thought that was the role of journalism -- not toconfirm for the majority what they already believe, but to make themconstantly question their own assumptions by exposing them to theminority opinion. That's the only way a free society can be certainit's making the right decisions, by being forced to defend it."It's probably a sure way to make a fool of myself, but given mynatural contrary nature, I just can't help it.Besides, I find that the people who march on the "wrong foot" are usually farmore interesting. Thisis all just a navel-contemplating way of linking to thisstory on Michigan Small Tech, the latest chapter in the Tale ofTomalia. Don Tomalia had his eureka moment back in 1979, when the Dow chemistfirst figured out how to make a synthetic molecule grow somescary-looking tendrils -- actually, dendrites. Thus, Doc Tomalia (thepicture at right is one I snapped of him at a Foresight Instituteconference last fall) introduced the world to the dendrimer. If I werea Hollywood casting director, I'd pick the dendrimer shape (not theneatly uniform buckyball) for my evil molecule. In reality, though, thedendrimer is far from evil. It might hold a key to fightingHIV or -- and I think this is especially cool -- can be set to self-destructat the right moment for use as a targeted drug-delivery device. The trouble was, it was just too expensive to grow the littlethings. So, Dow finally sent the IP packing in 1992, leaving Tomaliaand his tiny tendrils out in the cold for almost a decade. A couple ofyears ago, though, somebody at Dow must have been rummaging through theIP basement and found the little beasts again. This time, though,nanotech had finally caught up with Tomalia's creation. Dow snatchedthe little toys back and began its marketing push. Our lone hero,though, had already moved on. His company, Dendritic Nanotechnologies Inc.,is the pride and joy of Starpharma,which is going to pump more resources into the firm. That's good for Michigan. Good for dendrimers. And good for DonTomalia, who is finally coming in from the fringe. More background here,here,and here. Culture14721@blogcritics.org Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:36:43 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/10/084049.php Howard Lovy Wired didn't make me wait very long to find an illustration of a point I made last week in Washington. Big Concern for Very Small Things (Get it? The concerns are "big," yet the technology is "small.") mentions the Nanodesu bowling ball as "one of the first consumer products that uses nanoparticles called fullerenes -- aka buckyballs. ..." (These beauties come come in regular and "1500"). The reporter rolls out the balls, however, as merely a transitional vehicle to get to where he really wanted to go: From apples to oranges to, yes, fish. Our poor, brain-damaged bass who likely will never see retirement as long as Google News exists.This seems like a good opportunity for a transition of my own to a conversation I had last week with Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO). It's going to be his job to handle "public outreach" for the U.S. government's nanotech program. In this conversation, I present a scenario similar to the one Wired so nicely illustrated for me, only I used the example of buckyballs as drug-delivery device rather than as angel of 10-pin death.Here's a peak into the middle of our hour-long conversation (these are some pretty raw notes, so forgive the typos):Howard Lovy: There's a difference between chemicals that are bad for you in any size, are toxic whether they're nanometer-size or not ... Clayton Teague: Yes, arsenic -- it doesn't matter whether it's 1 micrometer or a tenth of a nanometer. It's bad for you. HL: But what's not understood is the effect of some of these new engineered nanoparticles and what happens when it's ingested or breathed in, or what happens when it passes through the blood-brain barrier. That's what's not understood. Teague: Let me just make one other point there. There's also a difference between, as you say, exhaust nanoparticles, or abrasive nanoparticles and some of the new engineered nanoparticles. There, if you took even nanometer-scale asbestos. It may have some dimensions that are nanoscale, but it's very highly uncontroled sizes, the surface chemistry is different, the aspect ratios are different.If I go to a buckyball. Every one of those buckyballs is nearly identical. They may conglomerate and form a different shape when they come together, but their surface chemistry and they way they look is like a highly uniform collection. They're very monodispersed. They're very highly uniform in character, in dimension, chemical surface property and things like that. So, that's why, in some instances they're functioning completely different, but it also may mean that their interaction with the body might be very different because they have this very nice, different surface chemistry and are very monodispersed in size. So, when we say they may be different in the body, they may be different in the body.HL: Well, that's what's confusing, then, because scientists want to use the buckyball for a drug-delivery device because of it's special properties. At the same there are FDA trials involving buckyballs there are toxicity studies involving buckyballs.Teague: Exactly. They're all going on.HL: So, to the general public first being introduced to buckyballs, which do they pay attention to? Are they wonderful drug-delivery devices or are they potentially toxic, or both?Teague: That's right. They could be. But until we have data, we have really honest-to-goodness data, we have no basis for a decision. As you were talking about earlier, people can get very afraid, but the FDA is not going to approve those as a drug-delivery device until their data can substantiate that they are not going to be harmful to the body.HL: Being a former general-interest journalist, here's how I can see things happening: The FDA comes out with something about buckyballs as a drug-delivery device. A reporter on the science desk at the Podunk Journal is asked to do a story on it. He does a LexisNexis or Google search, sees that story about the buckyballs and fish, and ties the two together. Then you've got another public relations problem.Teague: I think that's a very realistic scenario. Somehow it has to be communicated to people that fish and mammals don't react in the same way. That's one thing. How you get those kinds of things across in a valid way without sounding like we're trying to whitewash something is (pause). I think you have to be just as factual as you can (another pause). I don't know how else to deal with it, other than trying to be factual as you can and saying fish and mammals are different, you breathing something is different from you swallowing something as the fish does.HL: I don't envy your job. These are the issues you're going to be dealing with.More commentary on Howard Lovy's NanoBot. Politics14601@blogcritics.org Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:40:49 EDT