1. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142322 by Beer-monster on March 12, 2008 at 10:10 am

Not to steal Squinky's thunder but we are on the same side. I'm a PhD Physicist who specialises in nanotechnology and STM in particular. I think everyone has a right to comment, but I'm also fed up with the media running off to fantasy land everytime someone says nano.

[quote]Give me a quotation from the article in which it or one of its subjects claims that disease will be treated in the future using nanobots, and I'll agree with you.[/quote]

'"If [in the future] you want to remotely operate on a tumour you might want to send some molecular machines there," explained Dr Anirban Bandyopadhyay of the International Center for Young Scientists, Tsukuba, Japan.'

'Dr Bandyopadhyay believes his device may offer a solution. One day they may be able to guide the nanobots through the body and control their functions, he said.'

My two pence, is that this is a real shame. The development of such a molecular switch is amazing enough. Why convolute it with nanobot simulations and frenzy? We don't even have macro-scale robots working in groups to perform amazing tasks yet, why are we expecting it to be done on the nanoscale first?

Incidently, I'm currently writing an article for an Oxford student journal concerning nanobots and nanomaterials. If anyone is interested I can send them a copy when its done.

2. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142130 by Beer-monster on March 12, 2008 at 3:45 am

Someone should remind the BBC that the majority of serious nanoscientists think nanobots are a pipe dream.

However, this chemical logic circuit is enough on its own. This could be a useful step towards molecular scale electronic devices. Is the nanodoctor fantasy really neccessary?

3. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128871 by Beer-monster on February 18, 2008 at 6:24 am

As someone who works in nanotechnology, I think the problem comes from the common misconceptions concerning the field. Studies show that the US public at large is less scientificly literate that in Europe. When asked about nanotech the questioned probably have visions of nanobots reassembling them from the inside or of grey goo.

Of course it wouldn't surprise me that religion has some effect. Kurzwell fueling the nanobot myth by saying they'll enhance our intellect, is hardly going to speak to people who think we shouldn't play with ourselves in case we write off the factory warranty.

4. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98097 by Beer-monster on December 13, 2007 at 4:32 am

Seems like pointless political pandering. If you look at the words there is nothing there a politician could hope to disagree on and still keep there seat. Even I find some of the points impossible to argue against.

This seems like a good point to bring up something an American friend mentioned to me. Even though the federal constitution could be interpreted as secular, many state constitutions, which define the laws of that state, are not.

Article II of the Massachussets state constitution:

It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

And others. Could someone in The US explain how this reflects the assertion that the USA is a secular not a christian country, because right now I'm confused.

5. The Dawkins Prize for Animal Conservation and Welfare

Comment #72501 by Beer-monster on September 21, 2007 at 10:08 am

A friend once noted that 'By the Church' is a very vague phrase in Oxford (as is by the library).

Oxford has a long role in relgious events of the Uk. Methodism was founded here, by a fellow of Lincoln College.

However, now with Prof Dawkins leading the way we may become a leader in atheism. We're certainly having healthy, unrestricted debates in the CRs, which is a good move for changing the zeitgeist.

6. The Dawkins Prize for Animal Conservation and Welfare

Comment #72415 by Beer-monster on September 21, 2007 at 2:44 am

As soon as you said there were more Oxford students crawling around on this site, Cartomancer ,I knew college rivalry would take on cyber-form.

Good news on the awards. I hope this could be first step towards Richard's hope of a atheist rival to the Templeton prize (incidently did anyone else here about the physics conference they sponsored in Cambridge (boo!))

7. Oxford's Christian colleges 'are not suitable for school-leavers'

Comment #71582 by Beer-monster on September 19, 2007 at 4:39 am

#71572 by A.Lex

Here you go

http://www.theocca.org/

No prizes for guessing who the big Oxford name on that side is.

8. Radical Christians in Iraq

Comment #71557 by Beer-monster on September 19, 2007 at 3:03 am

Resa Aslan once made the point that much of the fire for Islamic terrorism in the Middle East is derived from the concept that this is a cosmic holy war, not a geopolitical conflict.

This is just a large bucket o' thermite on the blaze.

9. Oxford's Christian colleges 'are not suitable for school-leavers'

Comment #71553 by Beer-monster on September 19, 2007 at 2:56 am

This is good news. As an Oxford student I was beginning to get quite concerned by the reports about halls such as Wycliffe appearing in student papers.

One of the things I've enjoyed most since coming here is the liberal and pluralistic views on religion and the willingness to engage in genuine, robust debates on the subject. To have fundamentalists around I think threatens this discourse.

Now, if they could just take a closer look at the "Oxford center for Christian apologetics"

10. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61276 by Beer-monster on August 4, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Am I the only person worried about a 'center for christian apologetics' in Oxford?

Even if you can accept theology as a branch of academics (not sure I do), it seems plain stupid for a university, or anyone, to support an institute designed to teach illogical arguments to support irrational beliefs.

I don't know if I'm more offended as an atheist, scientist or Oxford student.

11. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56976 by Beer-monster on July 18, 2007 at 2:48 am

She's right on many things, and I like how she put the guy in his place, but there a couple of things I think she missed the mark on.

First, although often interpreted as a race isn't Judaism still a religion and therefore anti-semitism is not a racial but anti-cultural and anti-religious statement.

Also Islamophobia, if it exists, is defined not as disagreement with the beliefs of Islam but as irrational hatred for anyone identified as muslim simply because they are muslim. Similar to anti-semitism. I think there have been a few cases of this to be seen but its not it is not as institutionalised into Western (and specifically British) culture as many paranoid muslims would like to rant about.

Many people have claimed the US democracy to be the best, but the rights given by the US system can also be found in most western democracies. What exactly makes that system better?