Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (5747)	1/24/2004 1:55:14 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 6358

Nanotechnology A field whose products are too tiny to see seems to be headed for a big year. Nanotechnology will be an area to watch in 2004, thanks to an infusion of federal funding coupled to ongoing basic research and private sector applications in the latter stages of development. Nanotechnology is a multidisciplinary field that deals with the manipulation and manufacture of objects 100,000th smaller than a human hair in width. Materials made on that scale — basically small clusters of atoms or molecules — behave differently than larger-sized ones. For instance, the element carbon can form both hard diamond crystals and electrically conductive graphite. Carbon nanotubes combine both features — they are both extremely strong and are good electrical conductors. Last winter, President Bush signed the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which authorizes $3.7 billion in spending on the field over the next four years. That money will be channeled through the National Nanotechnology Initiative into several areas, including basic nanotechnology research and development of the field's academic and physical infrastructure. Industry is attempting to meet many of those grand challenges, such as developing nano-electronics and magnetics and establishing techniques for the manufacture of nanoscale products. For instance, scientists at Hewlett-Packard have developed a molecular chip a square micron in size — smaller than many bacteria. Earlier this month, IBM scientists announced they had developed a (patented) technique to make tiny, self-assembled transistors and an experimental silicon transistor 10 times smaller than those currently used commercially. Nanotechnology will have a continuing impact on biotechnology. As "Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers," a 2002 report from the National Academy of Sciences pointed out, "The relevance of the NNI to biology, biotechnology and the life sciences cannot be overstated." Developments in that area — including the use of optical tweezers to measure the motion of muscle molecules and the use of quantum dots to study nerve cell receptors — were Science magazine's No. 5 breakthrough of the year in 2003. In a few years, nanowires — slivers of metal no more than a few thousand atoms wide — may serve as sensors for agents of biological and chemical warfare. A number of nanoscale products are already on the market, including tennis rackets, ski wax and stain-proof clothing. General Motors uses nanomaterials to make running boards and fenders, and L'Oreal uses nanocapsules in its moisturizers. However, few nanoproducts can be manufactured in large quantities with high quality, and a recent story in Investor's Business Daily noted, "Nanotechnology ... is still more science project than actual business." Nonetheless, the products of that project will have a significant impact on society. Policy-makers and consumers should stay alert for developments in nanotechnology.

To: calgal who wrote (5747)	1/24/2004 1:55:27 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6358

Sobering afterthoughts By Thomas Sowell The headline story out of the Iowa caucuses is the surprising victory of Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, and the collapse of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's political bubble. This is all very well for those in the media who treat politics as the personal stories of politicians. But, for those who see politics as being about the fate of this country, rather than the careers of candidates, the story out of Iowa is much more sobering. How did Howard Dean become the early front-runner in the first place? And what does that say about the current attitudes and future prospects of America? Howard Dean came out of nowhere, as the former governor of a state with a smaller population than some cities, and shot to the front with smug, glib and irresponsible statements about a war that is still going on, not only in Iraq but around the world, in an age of nuclear proliferation. Strident leftist rhetoric was enough to propel him to the front of the pack with Democratic primary voters. Mr. Kerry caught up and overtook Mr. Dean largely by doing the same thing, but without the gaffes that revealed Mr. Dean's immaturity. The prevalence of image over reality was painfully apparent in the fact Mr. Dean, who never governed as many people as a mayor of Houston or Phoenix, was considered qualified to be president of the United States in a time of deadly national peril. Moreover, the image of an "outsider" helped Mr. Dean beguile the unwary, despite the plain fact he has been a professional politician for the last 20 years, beginning as a state legislator. While media pundits try to unravel the intricate political strategies and counterstrategies of the competing candidates, the question of what any of these people have to offer the United States of America gets lost in the shuffle. What all the Democratic candidates seem to offer are higher taxes. This has been the liberal formula for decades: Solve problems by throwing the taxpayers' money at them. And when that doesn't work, then throw some more money — out of higher taxes — because the previous amount apparently was not enough. When you can't get enough money out of the taxpayers, the political formula is to confiscate private money by the back door, by imposing price controls on businesses. Media pundits seem utterly uninterested in the actual economic consequences of price controls, even though the history of such consequences goes back for centuries in countries around the world. Those consequences have repeatedly included shortages and quality deterioration — which can be matters of life and death when it comes to medical care. But who has time to look up facts when there are exciting political strategies to chatter about? John Kerry is not only in the classic liberal tradition; he got to the front of the pack by being on all sides of the issue of war in Iraq. He voted for the war but then voted against the money needed to deal with the consequences of the war. He did not win by showing leadership but by following the rhetoric of Howard Dean while maintaining more of an air of dignity — but only an air. Perhaps most ominously of all, Mr. Kerry followed the liberal practice of playing the race card. When President Bush appointed Judge Charles Pickering to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Kerry denounced Judge Pickering as an advocate for a cross-burner. In reality, the man whose sentence Judge Pickering considered excessive had not burned any crosses. That is precisely why Judge Pickering thought he should not have received a longer sentence than a man who did, when the one who was punished more severely had driven the car that the cross burner traveled in. What makes Mr. Kerry's race card truly despicable is that Judge Pickering not only fought against the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi, back when it was dangerous to do so, he sent his own child to a newly integrated school with black children — which is more than most liberal politicians will do, even today. Race is not a game to be played recklessly. Not if the country matters more than a politician's candidacy. From the standpoint of the future of this country, Sen. John Kerry's political victory in Iowa means far less than the character flaws he revealed in getting that victory. Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.