• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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

« CRN goes to New Jersey and Seattle | Main | Drexler on Physics and Computation »

April 09, 2006


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

Chris Phoenix, CRN

For the record, here is my last-posted (and not yet visible) comment at the nanodot discussion. I was a bit annoyed at anonimouse when I wrote it, and on second reading I'd write it differently, but rather than edit that out I'll leave it in the record. Note that "Andrey" is a different person who also contributed to the nanodot discussion.

Andrey, for best efficiency (avoiding fluid drag) you want a vacuum. In early versions of the technology, if you need a solvent, liquid xenon is completely inert, yet makes a good solvent.

Anonimouse, we can’t do a mind-meld, so I can’t download to you every detail of my information. If you want more detail on a topic, ask, but don’t accuse me by implication of not knowing before you even ask.

There are not a lot of molecules smaller than acetylene. Acetylene has only four atoms, two of them hydrogen, and they’re colinear. Methane is fatter, and acetylene is the smallest two-carbon hydrocarbon. A large fraction of other molecules will be polar, which provides a basis for sorting in addition to steric matching.

Check out the neon pump at Nanorex.com (the PDB file is here at imm.org).

This is very different from your sodium pump, but it is a detailed design that ought to work.

“Attract” was, as you note, an imprecise description. I didn’t mean to imply a long-distance force. The binding site will have affinity for the molecule, which will encounter the binding site many times per second even at fairly low concentration. For more details, read the appropriate sections of Nanosystems and Nanomedicine.

I don’t know what sensory modalities are available in water that are not available to a proximal probe in vacuum. I don’t think you know either.


(Note: At this writing, some pages on imm.org seem to be hacked with malware, but the PDB link given above seems to be just a plain text file.)


Thanks Chris for bringing this to CRN, I was following it at nanodot. I've been thinking about "anonimouse's" problem of seeing at the nano scale without destroying what one is looking at. There is an interesting thought experiment called the quantum bomb detector. http://tinyurl.com/ruerq In the experiment we have to detect whether or not we have a good bomb or a dud, the bomb will explode (providing it is not a dud) when exposed to a single photon. Using the two-slit experiment the photon only destroys the good bombs half the time, the other half of the time we get the information that we have a good bomb without it exploding. This is better than all of them! By manipulating the wave function you can make the odds arbitrarily better, 60%, 90%, 99%, ect.

I first saw mention of it in an article about how quantum computers work better when you "don't acctually run the program". http://tinyurl.com/nk6qh
If this phenomena is already being exploited by quantum computer scientist, I wonder if it would be of any use to nanotechnologists? I have no idea setups like this will work for nanotechnolgy. It seems to me however, that we may find solutions to problems that have no precedent in nature, or man's macroscopic machines. Roger Penrose's ideas about human thought notwithstanding, there has been no evidence that nature has ever harnessed the more bizarre aspects of quantum mechanics. Drexler's ideas have always seemed very classical, converbelts and such. I wonder what a top to bottom rethinking of "Nanosystems" exploiting quantum dots and quantum wells would look like?

As to the more general issue of water it seems to me that it complicates maters as much as it helps.

Phillip Huggan

I also commented on the nanodot thread. I don't really think sensing beyond assembler's surface is that necessary. If the products aren't coming out right, junk part of the assembler. Made the assembler assembly modular. The analogy with existing industrial manufacturing is flawed because there is no functional lower level of resolution in a nanofac where screwups can happen.
NanoEnthusiast, I think there are many biological and industrial processes that harness quantum mechanics. One example from biology is that quantum effects on a microbe's surface are why it mutates into a antibiotic resistant variety so quickly. Lasers are a very well entrenched technology that harnesses quantum effects.

Philip Moriarty

I enjoyed reading the discussion at nanodot prompted by anonimouse's comments. I must admit that his/her single word appraisal of the nanofactory animation ( "Lame" ) right at the start of the discussion is very much in the spirit of comments from various scientists who attended the Nottingham Nanotechnology debate last year. I've discussed this in a little more depth over at Soft Machines .

The video raises a plethora of interesting questions regarding our ability to control matter at the nanoscale. Anonimouse's comments echo those made in previous debates re. the lack of low level detail in proposals for MNT and molecular manufacturing. For example, Josh Hall's response to questions during the debate on the nanomotor design was simply to say that "it's not rocket science" and to describe in the broadest possible terms some general nanomotor concepts. Simply pointing to Nanosystems and stating that the (admittedly clever) nanomotor design is in there is not enough: in terms of surface/nano science and engineering, realising the motor in Nanosystems appears, if not impossible, then as near as makes no odds.

As pointed out in my post at Soft Machines , however, the Drexler-Burch video and, more importantly, Nanosystems have made me think in some depth about the potential fundamental limits on our manipulation of matter. In order to push this thought process further, "matter compilation" features as one of the topics in the 2006-2007 IDEAS Factory scheme funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). This topic will be associated with ring-fenced funding of order £1M. Not quite a Nanhatten project (!), but enough to ensure that some interesting experiments related to "nanoscale matter processing" are pursued...

Best wishes,



Why is it that everyone who actually is in the field of Nanotechnology and chemistry that has actually done something remotely close to "Molecular Manufacturing" says Drexler's vision of "Molecular Manufactuing is a dream"?

Seeing as how some believe that such a complex and even impossible system is going to grace us in less than 20 years is making this even more unrealistic than it already is, and the icing on the cake is the notion that we'r going to have these perfect dream machines in our homes making us whatever we want with absolutely no problem, while the actual evidence of such a machine is a animated short film on blogs...I mean come, if anyone is going to even take this remotely seriously the MM fans need to put on the table something much less ridiculous.

btw is anyone here even in the field of chemistry/nanotechnology? I usually read most here are either computer scientists or other profesions which have nothing to really do with manufacturing itself.


DT has a good point

Philip Moriarty

Jerry, DT,

I don't know if DT's question (i.e. btw is anyone here even in the field of chemistry/nanotechnology?) refers to me or not, but in my case the answer is definitely yes. See the Nottingham Nanoscience group's homepage for details of the work in which I'm involved.

In previous debates and posts at, for example, Soft Machines , I've also raised the question of just why so few of those with a background in the physical sciences would consider themselves members of the molecular nanotechnology (MNT)/ molecular manufacturing community. The incredibly far-fetched 10 year/ 20 year timeline for nanofactory development has also been discussed at quite some length previously. See, for example, the debate Chris Phoenix and I had towards the end of 2004/ beginning of 2005.

Best wishes,




I've never read your posts before so I wasn't thinking of you, however many here are not at all associated with manufacturing and they have pretty unrealistic views regarding such technology, a mockery to realistic science and even possible "Molecular Manufacturing", not only on this blog but some very misinformed articles are popping up representing "MM".

Many of nanotech pioneers, including the group that actually conducted the IBM project say that Drexlers MM vision is impossible, Smalley who exchanged letters with Drexler got no answer from Drexler to his 3rd letter that asked the questions that make Drexler's MM threory unrealistic giving the notion that Drexler himself has no proof or maybe even answer to the problems that maybe be impossible to overcome.

Another reason Drexlers vision of MM will never even see light of day is that these 'machines' even if possible to make are going to replace humans and replace hundreds of industries breaking the vast majority of anti-trust/monopoly laws, Intellectual Properties which is actually the only thing that restricts others to copy everything from components to materials etc. Hell I don't need MM or a magic wand to make a multi-billion dollar drug, a pharmacist can make it in the pharmacy and then sell it right there, but then he'll be sued for 10 billion dollars and lose for breaking IP laws, Monopoly also won't be allowed ever in any developed/developing country, where a company can produce the parts,materials and the product then sell it itself. Thats not even the largest(yet its enormous) issue, the most ridiculous part is people will lose thier jobs, as you can see the French fire bombed the government for even mentioning changing minor laws and the gov backed down, now you think that 2 billion people will lose thier jobs for the sake of some machine making a product "twice" as durable? LOL come on...and how is anyone going to afford these super products without making money? oh I forgot the companies will grow golden hearts and spend billions researching and developing new products for Free, maybe in the future profit margins will be defined by charity points not money. I worked years in a Investment firm and the millions I managed and people I worked with makes me pretty sure that people work hard for one thing...money, innovation drive comes from...yes money, economic and social welfare comes from...money. To anyone in the financial sector this MM utopia is just laughable, and all this in less than 20 years? I will give you my left arm if such a thing happened in 200 years. I love science, but unrealistic utopia makes me gag cause it is just a major waste of time for everyone because its a dream, period.

Philip Moriarty

Hi DT,

I think that, as regards the science of MNT and MM, we have somewhat similar viewpoints. I don't want to rehash old arguments so I'll just point you towards my (long) debate with Chris Phoenix at Soft Machines (and Richard Jones' eloquent accompanying commentary). Despite this somewhat vitriolic debate with Chris, I must admit that some of the issues associated with MNT - specifically, those surrounding the question of computer-driven mechanosynthesis - pose valid and interesting scientific questions. For example, how might one carry out single molecule chemistry with a functionalised and rechargeable scanning probe?

Regarding the wider 'societal issues' surrounding the advanced MM concepts pioneered by Drexler (and, in particular, the societal implicatiosn associated with the rapid development of the 'nanofactory'), my personal opinion is that detailed discussion of these is simply misplaced as I don't believe that a Kurzweil-type "nanotech. singularity" is on the cards.

Best wishes,


P.S. Can't say that I agree with your "people work hard for only one thing...money" statement. PhD student stipends and postdoc/academic salaries are overall pretty poor (albeit improving) in the UK. If my key driving factor were money I'd not be an academic. (Naive and idealistic? Yes, and unashamedly so!).


DT -

This exact same diatribe that you have posted multiple times has been addressed... multiple times.




Maybe you could come up with actual technical problems this time, instead of blanket generalizations about MM being impossibile, even for 200 years. It has already been established that most people participating here are not involved in the nanotech industry (although I am personally working towards that goal with my current path in school), so if you believe that destroys the credibility of anyone replying to you, that is fine. In my opinion though, it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss the proposals for MM just because I don't have a PhD in physics/nanotechnology yet. Also, I think Robert Freitas and Ralph Merkle's credentials and work experience are pretty valid to the issue at hand - two advocates of the possibility of near-term MM.

Finally, I believe Smalley's letters to Drexler were basically strawman arguments. Smalley was presenting problems for scenarios that Drexler's proposals had nothing to do with.

George J. Killoran

Chris and Mike: I admire and respect the open discussions of molecular manufacturing that you permit on your website. I understand the skepticism some scientists and non-scientists have towards molecular manufacturing. They say it is impossible. That is what highly respected scientists like Albert Einstein and Ernest Rutherford said about nuclear power in the early 1930's. They believed nuclear power was impossible to achieve. Ernest Rutherford called it “moonshine” Then we had the Manhattan project during World War II and what was considered impossible resulted in the atomic bomb and non-military nuclear power. I think molecular manufacturing will follow a similar course and in the near future we will see the first impossible to invent nanofactory “invented”.


DT: Do you notice that all your arguments against MM (as far as they more than a circular "it's unrealistic because it's a dream because it's an utopia" etc. pp.) are basically saying "MM is undesirable", instead of "MM is impossible"? Human beings, no matter their expertise, have a very bad track record of predicting what technologies will and will not catch on with that chaotic, heterogenous, and mostly unpredictable mass named "the people".

p.s.: Since you wrote innovation drive comes from...yes money, How has humankind survived and innovated before they invented money or any equivalent thereof?

Philip Moriarty

Hi Rip,

As regards technical discussion, please see the Phoenix-Moriarty debate mentioned in my previous post (and the ensuing discussion at Soft Machines ), the Nottingham Nanotech. debate and a large number of comments by Richard Jones at Soft Machines . I've grown very tired of this continued insistence that all arguments countering the feasibility of molecular manufacturing are straw man-derived.

I thoroughly agree with you, however, re. Freitas' work (and have said this on more than one occasion in the past). Freitas has attempted to "fill in the detail" with regard to mechanosynthetic reactions and recognises the key role that basic experimental work will play in convincing the wider nanoscience community that there's some 'mileage' in mechanosynthesis. At least one component of my future research will focus on experimentally putting in place fundamental mechanosynthesis steps with a view to automated nanostructure assembly. This, however, is a long, long way from the construction of a nanofactory.

Best wishes,



Phillip Huggan,

To the best of my knowledge none of the information processing mechanisms in organisms is based on the premise of mixed-states like as is the case in quantum computers. Some have speculated that the brain may have structures in it that work like a quantum computer, but there is no evidence.

Sensory feedback loops in nature are based on mutation and natural selection. Feedback loops in car factories are based people being able to see and fix problems at anytime, anywhere. It is hoped that in a nanotactory design you just leave it running in a very controlled environment and you only need rudimentary sensors to check your work. What if at some point you needed something more substantial to check a workpiece? That is what interests me in the "quantum bomb detector thought experiment". In quantum computers 1s and 0s exist in a mixed state. When observing things on the very small scale it is hard to look at what you are doing without destroying your work. But if that observation itself is in a mixed state it MIGHT be possible to see nondestructively. I would like to know people's thoughts about how "Interaction-Free Measurements"
in the above link have been or could be used for nanotechnology, especially with regards to the current discussion.

Sorry I can not seem to get html working, and the original url keeps getting cut off.


Hi Philip,

Thanks for the links, I'll definitely check them out. Also, I didn't mean that all arguments countering MM feasibility were strawmen, just Smalley's ideas of sticky and fat fingers.

Phillip Huggan

DT, I'm currently studying several chemistry fields in depth. I also agree CRN's timelines are optimistic. But I'm only considering diamondoid MNT. Perhaps mass production of polymers or bioproducts are closer. I think CRN's timeline is also in the context of a best/worst case "Nanhattan" development scenario in which engineering talent and capital isn't scarce.

There are a few clever ways to get around intellectual patent laws. MNT would allow you to be pretty much self-sufficient. The easiest is to run the factory at sea flagged under one of the few nations that doesn't adhere to patent agreements. Then literally dump the energy and water filtration products on mainland. They will be smuggled. Patents are only valid for 20 years so at worst the patent jungle will delay MNTed consumer goods by a decade or two. I'm kinda hoping someone patents a bunch of MNT ideas right now because I think the patents will have already expired by the time scaleup is feasible.
People rendered unemployed will be able to retrain if there is a social safety net which in turn will be affordable if MNT owners GIVE their products away. The endgame is quality-of-living increases, not the endless perpetuation of a flawed neocapitalistic economic model.

For me, beyond basic necessities, hockey on cable and the odd recreational diversion, money is pointless. Most of the things I want including exponential manufacturing infrastructures, don't exist yet; cannot be bought. I can't imagine the consumer mindset of striving to attain a "better" car that costs 10X as much to repair as a clunker or a home that rents 10X more property taxes.

I don't think the Moriarty/Jones vs Phoenix debates killed MNT. Maybe they killed the version Drexler penned in 1992 before subsequent experimental results and computer simulations have since unearthed newer diamond surface behaviours. Definitely no one believes in utility fog as Drexler deliniated in the 1980s, but c'mon: the STM had just been invented. Some fundamental limitation were not and in many cases are not obvious. I think the diamond surface reconstruction problem can be solved by a very controlled low temperature environment for enacting the fundamental mechanosynthetic step, followed by product assembly in a more manageable environment. No one has explored using electric fields and field-induced vibrations for MNT; two techniques even easier to harness than is mechanosynthesis. A good motor hasn't been illustrated, but the lack of such a multi-disciplinary invention from only a handful of minds isn't proof a motor isn't feasible. Perhps Drexler's design can be salvaged if someone can find the time to study the proerties of nanometals.

Phillip Huggan

Nanoenthusiast, I've been shouted down everywhere I've suggested brains harness quantum effects. I'm not gonna defend the idea until I find the spare time to better develop it. But I know for a fact antibiotic resistant bacteria surface proteins "cheat" by harnessing other universes. It is the only way they have enough time to mutate as fast as they do mutate in evading antibiotics. I'll post the links to some papers here later. Even a dust-mote can briefly be a quantum system under the right inert environment. I'm sure quantum systems are everywhere, though perhaps your quantum bomb is a novel application. Last year something like that came to me as an idea for an AI safeguard...

Chris Phoenix, CRN

NanoEnthusiast, the quantum non-interactive sensing device is quite interesting in its own right. And yes, it looks like it could in theory be used to e.g. tell if an atom is present without (usually) interacting with it.

I suspect that it won't be necessary, though. Covalently bonded atoms don't tend to move around very much in the face of sensing, except for very high energy techniques like electron microscopy (which can deliver thousands of electron volts per electron).

High-energy beams can penetrate objects, so might be useful for looking at interior atoms. And so a non-interactive high-energy beam (whether photons or electrons) might in theory lead to a non-destructive 3D imaging technique. That would be very cool--but again, I think not a gating technology for MM.


Chris Phoenix, CRN

Philip (Huggan), don't concede too much. The debate with Jones/Moriarty was not constructive and was never concluded. AFAIK, no one who's interested in being constructive has raised diamond reconstruction as a potential showstopper. For one thing, terminating the surface (if necessary) should make it more stable. For another, let's not forget that some of the objections raised in that debate were off-topic and confusing, such as Jones's claim that silicon surfaces are unstable--while neglecting to mention that the instability was caused by oxygen!

I don't see anything in the laws of physics that forbids utility fog working, or forbids building it. BTW, UFog isn't Drexler's idea, it's Josh Hall's. Personally, I think a nanofactory will be easier to design and build than a UFog, because the control algorithms for UFog would be pretty hairy.



Regarding Timelines:
I do not believe that we are likely to have a Nanhattan project start anytime soon. CRN's timeline always seemed to optimistic. My main concern is the economic incentive in the steps needed to get to MNT. The IBM logo as a product is a non-starter. Who would pay an astronomical amount of money for a medallion with your name written on it with atoms? Of course that experiment was done for basic research. If SPM technology is going to evolve into something like a nanofactory, then there must be money to be made with it along the way. Bulk nanotechnolgies like buckyballs can be mass produced, and thus commercialized relatively easily. Future SPMs may be able to build three-dimensionally and be programmable. Philip Moriarty has outlined 4 goals along those lines in his post at softmachines.org, this would still be a far cry from a functional nanofactory. (low yields no scalability) Once the science has advanced to that point, could you make any money from the products of such SPMs? Anything thing made with atomic positional control sans self replication, would be very expensive and only have markets in the research community. It seems to me the direct route to MNT promoted by Merkle and Freitas may require much capital before paying for itself, this does not sound like something for the private sector. Even if we knew for sure MNT was possible governments would still have to be convinced before financing an "Apollo" like program. The question is what can we hope to have demonstrated in the lab in the next 10-15 years that would open the floodgates?

Intellectual Property and Jobs:
One of the main reasons why developing new products is expensive is the cost of equipment and materials. Scientist, even those working at pharmaceutical companies are not doing it just for the money. In many cases they have no choice but to work for these huge corporations not because they want multi-million dollar homes, but to gain access to multi-million dollar research equipment. Once all the equipment they need can be mass-produced by nanofactories, many will decide to never leave the academic world. Their subsequent breakthroughs will be made available for free or little cost, because it will not cost them millions to do the research. For a while this could be possible, but won't happen because the equipment the scientist might like to copy will be itself held up by patents and maybe even copyrights. If you can copyright a program that a nanofactory uses to make a product, you effectively can claim copyright (90+ years) on tangible goods. The solution is to rollback copyright and patent terms to something more reasonable. When there is a steady supply of new devices and works entering the public domain the amount of money required to build new works will diminish. Politically this may seem impossible. However if automation continues to make people loose good jobs and the major cost of everyday items is in the form of IP monopoly rents, the only way for people to make ends meet (On either a meager salary in the few remaining service industry jobs or welfare) will be to cut those costs. In democratic nations those large numbers of unemployed voters will demand IP reform and get it. When someone has to pay a thousand times the cost of manufacturing, for an item he used to make for a living, he will do something about it. Right now the issue is simply under most people's radar, but will not be if nanofactories are built.

You never know something like that, if it can be made to work, might come in handy.


I do believe some sort of Molecular Manufacturing is actually feasible and might even be in great use in the future, but only in making hi-tech systems such as nanorobots or something as complicated in small quantities, however the mass production lines churning out products by simply some molecules thrown in a simple box like machine making penny cheap super products without any Human labour is just a pipe dream and nothing more.

btw someone said that there is a way to get around IP, and thier solution was one that would never realistically works, just like it doesn't work today, people seem to forget manufacturing isn't the hard part, research and development is the part so many can't do and so few can, otherwise China can churn out enough products to fill the earth but it can't design a GE engine,arcelor steel or Pfizer drug. Components that go into a product are all researched and developed by hundreds of different companies, one company cannot design all components itself, it would be impossible and innovation would lag beyond belief. Giving people free products is just ridiculous, what if I want a 500 acre mansion, 50 ferraris and 100 cruise ships? am I going to get those for free then too? if not then how can anyone stop me from achieving this if I want to become rich and buy all this? are we going to force people into communism?


That is 10 in a million people, the vast majority of average people strive to be wealthier, it would be naive to think otherwise. Companies however, are only driven by money and nothing else, they won't move a nanometer if there isn't any money involved, and the investors in these companies are exactly the same, the Government wants economic development and wants to stay in power, money and people with jobs keep them there.



actually pahramaceutical costs aren't associated with materials and equipment, its associated with research, Pfizer spends 7.8 billion dollars on research, the research involves many years of chemical research after a viable product is found then the it has to go through the pahses 123 and then market, that alone costs hundreds of million of dollars to run it thorugh the FDA, every drug has to go through a extremely tough FDA criteria, many companies such as Geron have small labs and around 90 people, but they use a great amount of money in research. Like I said manufacturing isn't the problem, many nations can set up hi-tech manufacturing facilities and start chruning out products, but they don't have the ability to research and develop and product, "Molecular Manufacturing" is just that, a tiny factory nothing more, it doesn't research and design the product, just like a large factory.

Chris Phoenix, CRN

One more note, on DT's claim that IBM nano researchers are opposed to Drexler's idea:

Don Eigler is certainly opposed. I heard his opinion when we both testified to the National Academies molecular manufacturing study. I was quite disappointed. Instead of giving any actual objection, or any useful information, he chose to spend his whole time talking about how stupid and illogical Drexler supporters are.

Tom Theis, who's also at IBM, does not express such opposition. I have had good (though brief) conversations with him, and he has not expressed any conviction that MM is impossible. I don't know whether Eigler or Theis is more representative of opinion at IBM, but it seems clear that their opinions differ.


Phillip Huggan

I don't think I was conceding the was a problem, I was conceding there may be a problem. We don't have a enough research to know for sure either way. I was suggesting a very energy intensive solution.

There should be enough generic public product designs available after MNT, so that patents shouldn't immediately be an issue. It takes a few years to train people; we should probably dump a few products having expired patents upon the gen. population in the mean time. The Chinese will be the leading automotive manufacturers in a decade. Still far behind Pfizer but there will be room for niche biotech players.

One improvement we can bank on is improved nanotube manipulation techniques along with new carbon allotropes. That should explode our library of SPM probe tip manipulations.


I doubt China will be leading automotive designer, maybe manufacturer but not designer, in the future cars will develop into a much more advance system which are right now in intense research phase in western and japanese companies, China still hasn't even made its own simple all Chinese designed car.

I think people need to remember something here, cutting manufacturing cost will only benefit companies, they'll just profit more when they cut down cost, not profit less, Research and design is what drives companies not manufacturing, manufacturing costs is just a major problem for Companies, if(and I mean a very big if) MM ever sees the light of day in manufacturing then it'll be only a godsend to the companies, of course the government will never allow people to lose thier jobs, if it was going too, then robots right now can easily replace autoworkers, no need for MM, half the jobs today can be replaced by robots. Some people think if manufacturing technology gets better the whole capitalist and social infrastructure is going to come crashing down, I'm sorry but a tiny factory is not going to have a-n-y impact anymore than a giant factory regarding economic/corporate/social/financial/legal fields, all you did is make the factory smaller, it didn't change anything else, IP laws,monopoly laws,company profits,human suffering,product development,human labour, economic advancement etc will not be effected at all, MM isn't a god box that will make humans/companies/governments act any differently, it's simply a much smaller version of a factory thats available today, and that again is if something like that ever comes online. Don't confuse yourselves with far fetched dreams of utopia with such a machine, its not a dream genie system, some of you might be a scientist and some engineers, but you certainly aren't in the financial industry and apparently have very little understanding of economic development if you believe such drastic changes will come with a glorified mini factory.

The comments to this entry are closed.