Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: The Compendium of Nanomachines Message-ID: Date: 24 Aug 89 20:09:34 GMT Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco Lines: 21 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article Tom Schneider wrote: >Reading about utility fog and nanograss, I realized that I'm building up a >library of possible nanomachines in my head. Wouldn't it be neat to have a >list of all the ones people had thought of? Wouldn't it be even neater to have even a single nanomachine which was designed in detail? I could come up with a million ideas for nanomachines, but without some proof of concept, what's the point? Wouldn't it be more fun to write science fiction? There, you can get away with ignoring issues like power storage and dissipation, and reliability. When you claim to be talking about something real, it just makes you look silly. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Skip, witches! Hop, toads! Take your pleasure!" -- Aleister Crowley, THE BOOK OF LIES [Absolutely. Everyone who has carefully worked out, detailed designs for nanomachines of any type, is cordially invited to send them in now... :^) --JoSH]