X-Message-Number: 14461 References: <> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:18:22 +0100 From: "Joseph Kehoe" <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #14442 - #14448 A big step forward for nano? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/article/0,1051,SAV-0009120250,00.html Preliminary tests show that ultrananodiamonds are 1,000 more wear-resistant than silicon, and 1 million times denser than conventional crystals. This makes them a practical base material for micromachines and other devices that had only been theoretically possible before. More details here http://matsci.annualreviews.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/1/211 http://www.techtransfer.anl.gov/techtour/diamondmems.html All of the above courtesy of www.slashdot.org And on a brighter note http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/festival_of_science/newsid_921000/921748.stm Humans, like other large mammals, are showing signs of imminent extinction, claims a UK palaeontologist. Large animals are dying out at a much higher rate than models predict, said Professor Michael Boulter. He told the British Association's Festival of Science in London that he believed the human race would "soon" follow. The theory comes from a mathematical model developed by Professor Boulter's research team at the University of East London. :-( Lots of interesting stuff on the BBC site e.g. Arthur C. Clarke on Cold Fusion and stopping senility in snails Risking being accused of mental masterbation... On why are they not here. Life certainly seems to turn up everywhere we have looked so it would seem to be a common occurance. Possibly: 1. Life that is not oxygen based does not get to develop rockets? Simplistic but the point is life might not just exist within our parameters (carbon and water based). They would not be recognisable to us, would find the earth inhospitable and so would not visit and they would also have different drives (why should they expand just because they can? Maybe they will do the opposite and get smaller) 2. They are here. We do not go visiting every anthill we see to say hello to them. If they can travel vast interstellar distances then we would appear like ants to them. It is only human ego and paranoia that suggests they would try communicate or take over. 3. We are alone. This is pretty scary. Why are we alone or put another way why is there something instead of nothing since nothing is so much easier to do(forget who originally posed this)? The idea that we are the only life form, when you think about it, seems a very unlikely one. Why do we assume we are alone and then try to prove that we are not. Surely it makes more sense to assume we are not alone and have to try prove we are? From George Smith >(1) The evidence is ignored and reinterpreted. Most scientist are very flippant about ignoring people who claim evidence for these things. One thing is sure, our current timeline of history and human development has vast gaping holes in it. It was originally designed to prove that humans progressed to this point and that we are now at the pinnacle of human and societal evolution. It was then used to justify colonies, wars, slavery etc. I would view it as a political artifact more than a scientific one. >(2) Clark's Law regarding advanced technology being indistinguishable from >magic. Agreed. >(3) Human beings may be considered demented or psychotic from more >"advanced" intelligent perspectives. Some humans even consider us demented ;-) Joseph. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14461