• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed



  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« ASME Nano Bootcamp, Day 2 | Main | ASME Nano Bootcamp, Day 3 »

July 14, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451db8a69e200d834297d4253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cure aging with nanobots?:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brian Wang

Three bridges. I just happen to think of the movie "A Bridge too Far" for some quotes.

Brigadier General Gavin: What's the best way to take a bridge?
Maj. Julian Cook: Both ends at once.

======
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. General Frederick "Boy" Browning: I've just been on to Monty. He's very proud and pleased.
Major General Urquhart: Pleased?
Lt. General Frederick "Boy" Browning: Of course. He thinks Market Garden was 90% successful.
Major General Urquhart: But what do you think?
Lt. General Frederick "Boy" Browning: Well, as you know, I always felt we tried to go a bridge too far.

re: Market Garden
The 101st had to secure the bridge over the Wilhelmina canal in Son, the bridge over the Dommel in St-Oedenrode and the bridges over the Aa and Zuid-Willemsvaart canal near Veghel. The bridges over the Maas at Grave and the Waal at Nijmegen were the targets of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division; they were dropped near Groesbeek and Overasselt.
Finally, the British 1st Airborne Division had to secure the bridge over the Rhine at Arnhem.

My take: the historical takeway is that narrow targeted assaults are great if they work, but if the goal is worthwhile then more resources and a broader effort should be pursued. However, a narrow effort is not what is being proposed. I just happen to like the movie and the quotes

;)

Throwya

it is new and upcoming field of biotechnology
it might also be posible to bring someone back to life.

Chris Phoenix, CRN

Throwya, I don't think we're talking about spooky stuff here. It's not bringing a dead person back to life, any more than warming a hypothermia victim or defibrillating a heart attack victim is bringing a dead person back to life.

Of course, our standards of what's "dead" may change over time. It used to be that if you had no pulse, you were dead.

And our standards of what's spooky may also change over time. Take someone from 1931 who's just seen the first Frankenstein movie. Show them someone lying on a table, with no pulse... an electronic device applying shocks to their chest... and they "come back to life!" Would that person from the 1930's worry about whether it was the "same person" or whether a corpse had been revitalized? Sure. But today, we take it as a lifesaving technology.

People have been revived after being drowned in ice water for over an hour (though this is rare). I've also read serious medical proposals to insert ice-water suspensions into the lungs of heart attack victims and use CPR to supply cooled blood to the brain... then revive them later in the emergency room.

Will people who are dead by today's standards be brought back to life? Almost certainly. Will they be dead by the standards of that time? No.

Chris

The comments to this entry are closed.