What this is really about? I believe it a fairly new study. I was doign a little research about it - kind of frightening really. Weird sort of language. Check this:

3. What would be the physical appearance of a human who has been injected with medical nanorobots?
In most cases a human patient who is is undergoing a nanomedical treatment is going to look just like anyone else who is sick. The typical nanomedical treatment (e.g. to combat a bacterial or viral infection) will consist of an injection of perhaps a few cubic centimeters of micron-sized nanorobots suspended in fluid (probably a water/saline suspension). The typical therapeutic dose may include up to 1-10 trillion (1 trillion = 1012) individual nanorobots, although in some cases treatment may only require a few million or a few billion individual devices to be injected. Each nanorobot will be on the order of perhaps 0.5 micron up to perhaps 3 microns in diameter. (The exact size depends on the design, and on exactly what the nanorobots are intended to do.)

The adult human body has a volume of perhaps 100,000 cm3 and a blood volume of ~5400 cm3, so adding a mere ~3 cm3 dose of nanorobots is not particularly invasive. The nanorobots are going to be doing exactly what the doctor tells them to do, and nothing more (barring malfunctions). So the only physical change you will see in the patient is that he or she will very rapidly become well again. Most symptoms such as fever and itching have specific biochemical causes which can also be managed, reduced, and eliminated using the appropriate injected nanorobots. Major rashes or lesions such as those that occur when you have the measles will take a bit longer to reverse, because in this case the broken skin must also be repaired.

LINK for more info: http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedici...edFAQ.html#FAQ1

___________________
"For attractive lips, speak words of kindness. For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people."

o.k. so it is like time travel...

___________________
"For attractive lips, speak words of kindness. For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people."

hahaha...nanotechnology...it's definitely not a new study, nor is it a new field...it's been around for a while now, but is the new rage in acedemic circles, or at least with the NSF...if you're an aspiring professor, and want to get grants up the wazoo, just mention the word nanotechnology in your grant proposal and you're set for the next 10 years...other keywords include biotechnology and supply chain...so technically, if you're doing supply chain optimization on a nano-biotech plant, you're guaranteed millions in funding...Anyway, sorry for hijacking the thread, but I cringe everytime I hear the word...

quote:

Originally posted by girllovingtvibe 1) The typical therapeutic dose may include up to 1-10 trillion (1 trillion = 1012) individual nanorobots, although in some cases treatment may only require a few million or a few billion individual devices to be injected. Each nanorobot will be on the order of perhaps 0.5 micron up to perhaps 3 microns in diameter. (The exact size depends on the design, and on exactly what the nanorobots are intended to do.) 2) The nanorobots are going to be doing exactly what the doctor tells them to do, and nothing more (barring malfunctions). So the only physical change you will see in the patient is that he or she will very rapidly become well again. LINK for more info: http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedici...edFAQ.html#FAQ1

As an engineer I find this very scary.... I've done failure analyis before an the numbers of devices he's talking about is crazy.

Firstly say the chances of a nano bot malfunctioning is 100,000 to 1.

Then say the chances of one malfunctioning in a way in which it would do damage is 1,000,000 to 1 (that is 1 in one million will fail in a way in which will do damage).

Then that means 1,000,000 nano bots doing damage to you in ways which the scientists have no idea (1 Trillion chances to fuck up). Please bear in mind these things will have software on them.... probebly really advanced software (greater complexity = higher failure rates).

Thats goning to be a constant by the way whatever they do in terms of technology. And my estimations were very conservative.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish As an engineer I find this very scary.... I've done failure analyis before an the numbers of devices he's talking about is crazy. Firstly say the chances of a nano bot malfunctioning is 100,000 to 1. Then say the chances of one malfunctioning in a way in which it would do damage is 1,000,000 to 1 (that is 1 in one million will fail in a way in which will do damage). Then that means 1,000,000 nano bots doing damage to you in ways which the scientists have no idea (1 Trillion chances to fuck up). Please bear in mind these things will have software on them.... probebly really advanced software (greater complexity = higher failure rates). Thats goning to be a constant by the way whatever they do in terms of technology. And my estimations were very conservative.

Sounds safe!

___________________
Died Tragically Rescuing His Family From The Wreckage Of A Destroyed Sinking Battleship

Yep, thats the field I want to specialize in. Currently I'm a chemistry undergrad but I want to go into Graduate school in a field that uses nanotech (its not really that new, and alot of fields are developing nanotech).

Have you ever read the book The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson? It talks about alot of nanotechnology. They call them "mites" in the book.

Who is willing to volunteer to be a test dummy?

___________________

hmm odd, I thought girls were banned from this forum ....

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

The government will have backdoor access to them and be able to monitor your thoughts possibily even terminate you at will. Advertisers will be able to pay off hospitals to get access and send you advertisements in your sleep.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish As an engineer I find this very scary.... I've done failure analyis before an the numbers of devices he's talking about is crazy. Firstly say the chances of a nano bot malfunctioning is 100,000 to 1. Then say the chances of one malfunctioning in a way in which it would do damage is 1,000,000 to 1 (that is 1 in one million will fail in a way in which will do damage). Then that means 1,000,000 nano bots doing damage to you in ways which the scientists have no idea (1 Trillion chances to fuck up). Please bear in mind these things will have software on them.... probebly really advanced software (greater complexity = higher failure rates). Thats goning to be a constant by the way whatever they do in terms of technology. And my estimations were very conservative.

But you're immediately assuming that the malfunction will result in a harmful behaviour of the bot. Most of those malfunctions will only cause that a nanobot becomes ineffective, and even if a few of them develop harmful malfunctions, such a miniscule amount is hardly capable of doing any serious damage.

As for the complexity of their software, it's not as advanced as you assume. They're simply too small to have any complex commands entered into them. They'll most likely be something among the lines of "if chemical a detected, release chemical b". It's not like you'll have a huge mass of wild robots ravaging through your body and tearing your organs apart.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 But you're immediately assuming that the malfunction will result in a harmful behaviour of the bot.

Nope read it again. 100,000 to 1 of a malfunction. 1,000,000 to 1 of it failing in a way in which it would cause damage. (pretty convervative if you ask me).

Only way to minimise the risk is 1) loads and loads of redundancy{internal and/or external) and 2)Very short operational life.

I understand what you saying though too, but how exactly do you predict that when you don't know how they are going to fail? Also if they are networked will it fuck emm all?

And although the programming could be simple, probebly a form of AI, how do you validate(provide assurance) the outputs for all possible inputs unless you have a very simple system?

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus hmm odd, I thought girls were banned from this forum ....

u wanna go!

___________________
"For attractive lips, speak words of kindness. For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people."