×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nanotechnology

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the specks-of-good-and-evil dept.

Science 114

iConrad writes "I first found this book on EDN which described it by saying, 'It collects many ideas about what nanotech is doing and has the potential to do without the breathless hype.' I've read the Drexler books and pretty much everything else I can find about nano, so I already know that nano will save the world, replace humanity, etc., etc. (Sigh.) What I didn't know (and I think this book really told me) is what nanotechnology really is, what it is doing right now, what it will mean for businesses, and why I should care." Read on for the rest of iConrad's review.

In other words, I started this book very skeptical, but it convinced me. I don't know how many of you have heard of Mark Ratner, but he is credited with being the first to speculate on using individual molecules as components in electronic circuits back in 1974. If you read about molecular electronics now (or go to any moletronics conferences) you'll see his name come up constantly. He is also associate director of the nanotech institute at Northwestern University, the first dedicated nanotech center in the country. This is not like reading a lot of the books out there - he really knows his stuff.

The book starts with a general introduction, talks about hype, nanobots, and the big budgets that are out there for nanotech research. It opens a lot of questions, including ethical issues and a little bit of skepticism which I think is very healthy for a science which promises a lot, but has yet to truly distinguish itself.

After the introduction, there is a chapter which gets to the heart of matters -- it explains that nanotech is not just the ultimate level of miniaturization, but that it is special since it is at the interface of bulk properties, quantum properties, and the key elements in life processes (such as DNA). It also sets the stage for the heart of the book -- chapters on tools for the nanosciences (ever wonder why nano wasn't real until now even though Feynman started talking about it in the 1960s?), a grand tour which will quickly dispel any illusions that nanotechnology is all about nanobots a la Bill Joy and Star Trek, and chapters on smart materials, biomedical applications, sensors, optics, and electronics. There is also recap of some basic science, but not many Slashdotters will need that.

While the hype may not be breathless, these chapters left me that way. What the Ratners discuss is real, in context, and discussed intelligently and thoughtfully. They gave me enough science to explain what they are talking about but not enough to distract me and they include a dash of some appropriately wry humor to lighten things up. There are illustrations throughout and a color inset in the middle. The illustrations are clearly from lab work -- their quality varies significantly, but I found them very useful indeed.

One of my favorite aspects of the book is the sidebars -- there are sections on DNA computing, quantum computing, swarm computing, nanotubes, lab-on-a-chip, and other applications. These are short, sweet, and, as always, to the point.

The book ends with two chapters on business and ethics. Unlike most nanotech books I've read, there was some substantial thought here. Ethical issues such as intellectual property concerns as well as health issues were treated at some length. The book doesn't come to conclusions on these points -- it attempts to present a balanced discussion and actively encourages readers to enter the debate. The business section was obviously written by someone who lived through the dot-com bubble (I'm guessing this was Mark's coauthor, Dan). Some of the points were obvious, but the analysis for investors is something well worth reading (attention VCs!) and again, the authors set the sights at a reasonable level. They point out that there are fortunes to be made, but not by accident. They also make some predictions about where the money is.

My only complaints about this book were that a few of the pictures were not of ideal quality, and that the companion web site wasn't very exciting (though they promise to update it.) All in all I found the book to be an ideal mix of technical and non-technical, a superb survey of a complex field, and an interesting read throughout. It leaves all of the other "introduction to nano" books in the shade -- perhaps because it is written by a pioneer in the field as well as someone who has thought about how to make it pay. I considered it required reading for anyone who wants to understand what nano is really about.


You can purchase Nanotechnology: A Gentle Introduction to the Next Big Idea from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

114 comments

Nanotech (5, Funny)

big_groo (237634) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973243)

I wish I had some Nano-probes to get rid of my awful hangover.

Tits up to the Trolls(tm) !!! fp

Re:Nanotech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973253)

Why does it not suprise me that these failures also fail to do the one thing that they actually try to do?

I wipe my ass with your failed FP attempt.

F015T P015T? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973301)

FIRSTUS POSTUS, BEEEEEOOOOTCHAE!!!

Bow down and tremble before my nanoscopic magnificance!





I have surely got it this time!
pleeeeeease?!!!

Re:F015T P015T? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973980)

lol
Good one Bryan.

Re:Nanotech (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973462)



I wish I had some Nano-probes to ...

CmdrTaco has a nano anal-probe he'd be happy to lend you.


worms? (3, Funny)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973252)

Could they make nanites like the worms in futurama, or do I have to eat the special sauce at a space diner?

Re:worms? (1)

zephc (225327) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973443)

FYI, it was a sandwich bought from a truck-stop mens room food dispenser, labeled "fresh" egg salad sandwich

Re:worms? (1)

reverseengineer (580922) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974572)

Well yes, but later in the same episode, Fry is talking with the leader of the parasitic worms, who informs Fry,"One day you'll be eating a fast-food burger and BOOM, you'll be crawling with us again. Ever wonder what makes special sauce so special? Yo."

Mark Ratner (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973265)

Haven't heard from him since Fast Times...

real Ratner created the "for Dummies" books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973432)

The book that spawned this movie was based on real students, and this one in particular founded the publishing empire for Dummies!

Mark Ratner (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973276)

Did he finally stop hanging out with Damone? Did he and Stacy get married? Glad to see he got a better job than ticket-taker/usher.

Re:Mark Ratner (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973375)


I'll ask Stacy as soon as she's done sucking my dick. I don't know if she'll be able to anwser the question with a mouth full of jit though. So I'll just punch her in the face until it all falls on the flor - a pile of cum, blood, and teeth.

"dispell any illusions that ..." (3, Funny)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973289)

nanotechnology is all about nanobots a la Bill Joy and Star Trek

What about Mystery Science Theater 3000 [mst3k.com]? The nanites [scifi.com] on that show were really great, though they did have an unfortunate habit of blowing up planets when rattled.

Re:"dispell any illusions that ..." (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973567)

I'd love to see the EULA that comes with the nanites.

In the event of planetary destruction I agree not to hold the manufacturer responsible for any loss of life, property or infringement of DMCA yada yada yada
Please call this number 888-8888888 for more information

So did Slashdot hijack the BN referrer? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973305)

Or did they let the comment submitter use theirs?

Where do you keep the batteries? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973316)

What I don't get about nanotech is how do you power these things?

Re:Where do you keep the batteries? (5, Funny)

Baron_911 (664953) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973342)

They are locked into a perpetual state of EATING each other for power! Canabalnanobot!

Re:Where do you keep the batteries? (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973465)

That's not a dumb question. It's the main reason that free-floating assembler nanobots probably won't work. They have the same energy constraints as biological life. Biology can build big, solid objects like trees, but it takes years. Drexler used to talk about vats of nanobots building things like rocket engines, but that takes real power and it has to come from somewhere.

Nanomachines on an IC substrate, attached to external power, look much more feasible.

How about radio waves? (3, Interesting)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973756)

I wonder if it would be possible to power something as small as nanobots using radio waves. If you think about it, all an antenna does is collect radio electromagnetic energy and translate it into electrical energy for the radio to then retranslate into sound.

Nanobots are small - they shouldn't need too much power. I don't know about the real feasibility of this, hardware not being my department :), but I wonder if there is a way to power nanobots "wirelessly".

Microwaves, fuel cells, even a strong light (5, Interesting)

Klaxton (609696) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974919)

I've seen articles that suggest microwave radio transmission as one way to get power to lots of small-scale machines. Actually, simply illuminating them with any kind of electromagnetic radiation that would generate electricity via something like solar cells might be a simple way to convey power, that way you can juice them as much as neccessary. In fact, you could just put them in a field of alternating magnetic force and have their onboard motors be driven directly. Another way might be for them to have small fuel cells onboard. You put them in a pressurized atmosphere of hydrogen and oxygen to allow them to tank up.

Re:How about radio waves? (3, Interesting)

VendingMenace (613279) | more than 10 years ago | (#5975112)

Actually, there has been some discussion of using small cubes of Iron and sulfur. On that contains 8 atoms to form a battery. Then you could link several of these together into a supramolecular assembly to create a larger (and more usefull) battery that is still on the nano scale.

This seems pretty exciting to me. Since it would run off of reduction/oxidation states, one could recharge in with a chemical reaction, light, or just by applying a voltage accross the solution that the machines are in. Yeah, so this seems pretty promising, although a long way off.

two words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973853)

brownian motion.

(Also, there are rumors of spray on battery technology being developed for nanobots too large to be powered by brownian motion but still very small.)

Re:Where do you keep the batteries? (3, Interesting)

non (130182) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973869)

biology, or rather evolution, has come up with some fairly novel ways for cells to create energy, ie. metabolize stuff via reduction, etc. cockroaches don't seem to have any problem, do they?

reproduction, on the other hand, probably isn't desired of nanobots. certainly not uncontrolled reproduction (ask Bill Joy ;). biological organisms spend huge amounts of energy on reproduction. lift that requirement and the bot may be able to scavenge enough to survive.

when it comes to building jet engines, or any other large or complicated thing, the interesting thing is more likely cell lineage, like in biology. see the nematode for a good example; its entire cell lineage is known. how would these nanobots know how to assemble into something useful?

Re:Where do you keep the batteries? (2, Insightful)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974348)

biology, or rather evolution, has come up with some fairly novel ways for cells to create energy, ie. metabolize stuff via reduction, etc. cockroaches don't seem to have any problem, do they?

reproduction, on the other hand, probably isn't desired of nanobots. certainly not uncontrolled reproduction (ask Bill Joy ;). biological organisms spend huge amounts of energy on reproduction. lift that requirement and the bot may be able to scavenge enough to survive.

Right. And "free-floating" nanobots wouldn't have to spend as much energy scavenging, either. It's not like they'll just be dumped into a vat of seawater; presumably fuel/nutrients will be provided as relatively ready-to-hand as the materials they'll need to build whatever they're gonna build.

Substrate-based molecular manufacturing is probably more straightforward (and therefore may happen first). Free-floating molecular manufacturing may end up being more flexible (and therefore also worth working toward). Actually, what may end up being best is a mixed approach, some kind of substrate-in-soup thing, and/or different approaches used for different desired results.

Besides which, does anyone know how long it takes to make a jet engine now, starting from raw materials? Weeks? Months?

Doh i guess i have a serious reply... (1)

Baron_911 (664953) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973517)

I remeber seeing a story (either /. or techtv) about charging wireless devices using a little pad. All you had to do was set it on top, and it somehow charged the battery. I suppose you could just slap all the bots on one of them. Prolly wouldn't need a whole lot of power either...

Re:Where do you keep the batteries? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973715)

Chemical storage and conversion of power is pretty scalable - I mean, our cells contain mitochondrial power plant organelles which are pretty darn small. But it is a reasonable issue to bring up - the more "fuel," of whatever variety, a self-contained nanomachine has to carry, the less "nano" it is. Or else it has to have some kind of refuelling station. Something might be done with solar (the chloroplast, again, is pretty nano-scale) but we're a long way off of effective solar power generation at the nano scale. This does inject some reason into the whole "nanobots amock," "grey goo" fears some have of nanobots wreaking havoc on all things. The laws of physics put some serious constraints on what a very tiny thing can acheive (the virus, for example, can't do anything without subverting your big ol' ponderous body's equipment for replication - itself another level of caution, because sometimes it's not what the little thing can do but what it could make other things do...)


However, in a lot of applications I think this is probably a moot point, as nanoscale devices will be components of other devices rather than stand-alone machines, and will thus access the powergrid of the conventional scale device. I mean, sure I want a quantum computer in my cell phone so it can guess who I want to call before I'm finished deciding and save me precious seconds. But I don't want my cell phone to actually be nanoscale. Damn things are on the edge of ridiculously small as it is.

More light! (1)

Randym (25779) | more than 10 years ago | (#5975204)

How about using ambient light? Obviously, if outside in full sunlight, using photonic energy is not a problem, but even under inside conditions or underwater it seems that there is enough light from fluorescent, ambient and reflective sources to keep a nanobot active.

Of course, this is not feasible for nanobots working in complete darkness, such as processing oil or sludge, or laboring underground. Maybe those could operate using hydrogen / sulfur pathways.

Ooooh... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973319)

I see a remake of "Innerspace" on the horizon!

booyaw!

Research buzword (4, Funny)

bperkins (12056) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973322)

Someone I know is a grad student at a prestigious university that shall remain nameless. He's doing research that is supposed to somehow be "nanotechnology." However, the size of devices he's dealing with is huge, about 50 to 100 microns.

We decided that this was "mega-nanotechnology."

Re:Research buzword (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973534)



We decided that this was "mega-nanotechnology."

HAHAHA haha lol that's too funny! You're pretty witty! No you're not, I meant to say shitty!. Stupid fucking asshole. mega-nano hha ahahhaha hahhah lol *snort* hee whoo stop it, you're killing me! Whooops, there goes milk out my nose! Cunt, I'd like to fill your mouth up with a load of my jit, and then when you puke it out I'll cram the vomit and spooge up your sister's bleeding twat. LOL MEGA hahah I love you, man.



Re:Research buzword (1)

CaseyB (1105) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973536)

We decided that this was "mega-nanotechnology."

In other words, "millitechnology".

Re:Research buzword (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974883)

Well...the objects are on the order of microns ie. micrometers, not millimeters, so it is microtechnology :D

Re:Research buzword (1)

Dinosaur Neil (86204) | more than 10 years ago | (#5976095)

Actually, CaseyB has it right;
nano- prefix indicates 10^-9
mega- indicates 10^6
therefore mega(nano) = 10^-3 or milli-

Re:Research buzword (1)

RevDobbs (313888) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973583)

Funny... I was just wondering on how I could capitalize on the "nanotech" buzzword myself. I was thinking of something along the lines of "Optimizing datasets to increase throughput on nanotechnology driven media using commodity protocols."

I mean, electrons could be measured in nanometers, and http is in wide spread use... not bad for stripping all of the "newline" character(s) out of a web page...

MEMs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973790)

I believe what you are referring to are MEMs (Micro-Electromechanical Machines). These are devices in the micron scale (and such are not nanotechnology). Nanotech is devices at the nanoscale. MEMs research and devices are generally much further advanced than nanotech currently (for obvious reasons) and there are several real-world MEMs devices out there. A good example is probable the accelerometer in your car's airbag (which measures the high acceleration during a crash and tells your airbag to deploy).

~Laur

Re:Research buzword (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973848)

Best definition of 'nanotechnology' yet (also heard in the halls of an august research institution...):

'Money grubbing and wanking by half-assed theorists with neither the brains to understand physics nor the discipline to understand chemistry.'

That's not necessarily wrong (1)

siskbc (598067) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973875)

Someone I know is a grad student at a prestigious university that shall remain nameless. He's doing research that is supposed to somehow be "nanotechnology." However, the size of devices he's dealing with is huge, about 50 to 100 microns.

I take your point about using the "nano" buzzword for mindless grant-spamming, but he could be right. The definition of nanotech is typically a material that has at least one dimension containing features that are designed and controlled at a resolution below 200 nanometers.

The definition might change a bit with who you talk to, but the key point is feature control. I could have something that's 10 feet on a side, but if I carefully control the feature size/resolution at a level of 100 nm, that could appropriately be called "nanotech."

But naturally, it's just a word.

Re:Research buzword (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5974829)

This sounds more like hecto-nanotechnology or kilo-nanotechnology to me.

Next Step (0, Troll)

Baron_911 (664953) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973329)

War nanobots! Wouldn't it be great if nations of the future duked it out with nanites! War on a petri dish! We could paint little numbers on their backs... Huzzah!

Re:Next Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973378)

"war nanobots"
or maybe army on a petri dish and then let the army go free in a city, quickly and invisibly destroying all people. not so funny anymore? prolly still have to paint numbers on thier backs tho....

Re:Next Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973480)

LOL! that would be awesome. Maybe we could have nano soccer games. I wonder if the neo-british hooligans would stomp on the opposing team.

Re:Next Step (2, Interesting)

denubis (105145) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973811)

Read Neal Stephenson's The Diamond age. Not only does he go into the various social implications of nanotech, but he has quite a lot of fun envisioning ... less than friendly aspects.

One of my favorites:
Cookie cutters, things the size of a blood-cell that contain 2 spinning wedges that spin at oppoisite orientations (to eliminate the gyroscope effects of the spinning mass.) when the detonation command occurs, the central axis disolves and the two wedges fly outwards at above the speed of sound. They are slowed, and the thing that turns your body into a pulpy bag of undiffrential gore are the sonic booms. They are called cookie cutters becuase they pulp everything outside their area of effect, but the inside is relativly untouched.

Fun with nanotech!

Re:Next Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973923)

I prefer the nanomeds from Cathernie Asaro's Skolian Empire series (http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/).

--- Brian

gay.slashdot.org (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973338)

this sucks
next story please!

Re:gay.slashdot.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973814)

gay.slashdot.org

Chuckle... Glad I am reading at -1.

Trolls are like Springer... you can't believe you watch it, but damn, sometimes it just makes you laugh.

AC (protectin' the Karma)

Last chapters on Business and Ethics (4, Funny)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973341)

Chapter on Business, first line: "Fire anyone who reads the chapter on ethics."

Nano technology ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973352)


Malda's penis pump.

*bum duh dah*

Reference Source (5, Informative)

non (130182) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973362)

Most of what I've read about nanotechnology has come from Scientific American [sciam.com]. From a layman's point of view their nanotech section [sciam.com] is probably the best reference there is.

Re:Reference Source (3, Informative)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973581)

They have a book [amazon.ca] that's a collection of papers. I found that out while looking at the book that the reviewer was talking about on amazon.ca.

Re:Reference Source (0, Troll)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974536)

Most of what I've read about nanotechnology has come from Scientific American. From a layman's point of view their nanotech section is probably the best reference there is.

Yeah, it's pretty good. Which is kind of ironic, given their original foot-in-mouth reaction to Drexler's original speculations.

(It's worth mentioning that Drexler's speculations have actually tended more toward the conservative, all things considered. He's evidently been exasperated at times by some of the, um, let's say "overly enthusiastic" nanotech cheerleaders. See: Abrupt Change, Nonsense, Nobels, and Other Topics, especially the section titled "The Problem of Nonsense in Nanotechnology".)

will this be bad for linux? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973373)

This ounds like a good idea, but I'm worried it may have long-term broader social consequences.

I think we can all agree that the temporal expectations (as shownd by Schroeddinger) suggest an eliptical evoltuion path, even for technology. Taken to the logical extreme, it's clear that there monolithic kernels like linux are incompatable with nanotechnology and nano-kernels. Indeed, most nano-kernels (minix, darwin, WinNT) are non-free.

The First (Degreed) Nanotechnologists (1)

codefool (189025) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973381)

I've only known one persnally. I worked with him at the consulting division of [an airline] where he contracted. He was a Liberatarian and one of the strangest people I have ever known. Anyhow, he was very proud of the fact that he had convinced the University of Hawaii to allow him to design a degree plan so he could actually get a degree in nanotech (this was in late 80's.) They did, and he did, and he was convinced that he was the first person ever to obtain the credential. So he had this business card (calling card actually) on which he proudly displayed "The first degreed nanotechnologist."

To which I would reply, "So all the other nanotechnologists don't have a degree?"

help! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973389)

It's friday. That means, tonight I'll go out, pick up some chick, have sex with her, and kick her out.


That gets boring fast (faster than you'd think!). Anybody know some fun things to try?

Re:help! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973427)


For a real change, you could pick up Rob Malda instead of some skanky whore. I know what you're thinking ... "whoa, there buddy. I'm not gay!" I know, and I once thought just like you. But listen, Malda has had SO many dicks in his mouth, he really knows what he's doing. He's a seasoned expert at sucking schlong, and he'll work his lips, tongue, and head in a such a way that you'll be spurting down his throat in no time! It will be the best orgasm of your life, and no need to kick him out when you're finished because he'll do it again and again, all night long.

This, of course, assumes that you're black. Otherwise he won't have anything to do with you. Looking like you're underage helps too.

I have a game for you. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973452)

Go out to a real skank-bar with about 20 of your friends. One sober guy stays the referee. Everyoune put $20 on the table (except the referee) and spread out. The person to french kiss the ugliest porker in the bar wins the cash.
This is a great game that there really isn't a winner, but there is a guy that's $400 richer, albeit scarred for life.

Re:I have a game for you. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973494)


LOL that's too funny. My friends and I play the same game, but instead of frech kissing a porker our winner has to screw a gay negro in the bum. Then he yells RODEO RODEO and everyone else rushes into the room and the ref counts the number of seconds until he gets bucked off. Good fun.

Re:I have a game for you. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973559)

Sounds like a donkey-punchin' good time! I'll have to try that one. Doez it have to be a gay negro though? I respect them more than women, and I'd really hate to embarass one.
Not to get off topic or anything, are you farmiliar with the flying camel? Wonderful Sexual Position! Almost as demaning as the 'Dirty Sanchez'

Re:I have a game for you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5974001)

bwahahaha!

unfortunately, with some of my friends, i know they'd "win" everytime (and have no shame about it!)

Re:help! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973619)

Hope this helps...

The Dirty Sanchez, Etc.
From: "Br. Cleve" <bcleve@pop.tiac.net>
Subject: the dirty sanchez, etc

Here is a fairly extensive compilation of some of the extraordinary sexual activities that can be performed by men:

1. Hot Lunch - While receiving head from a woman, you proceed to shit on her chest. (A.k.a. the Cleveland Steamer)

2. The Stranger - Sitting on your hand until it falls asleep and then jerking off, eliciting the feeling of a hand job from someone else.

3. Western Grip- When jerking off, turn your hand around, so that your thumb is facing towards you. It is the same grip that rodeo folks use. Hence, western.

4. The Blumpkin- You need to find a real tramp to do this right. It involves having her sucking you off while you are on the shitter.

5. Donkey Punch - Banging a girl doggy style and then moments before you cum, sticking your dick in her ass, and then punching her in the

back of the head. This gives a tremendous sensation, but for it to work correctly,
the girl must be knocked out so that her asshole tightens up.

6. Golden Shower - Any form of pissing all over a chick (a.k.a.- watersports)

7. Pearl Necklace - Well known. Whenever you cum on the neck/cleavage area of a girl - it takes on the look of beautiful jewelry.

8. Coyote - This occurs when you wake up in the room of a nasty wombat and you know you've got to give her the slip. However, you realize that your arm is wrapped around her. Therefore you must gnaw off your own arm to get out of the situation. Can be very painful.

9. Purple Mushroom - This occurs when a woman is giving you oral sex and you withdraw your penis in order to poke it back into her cheek. It should leave a lasting impression similar to purple mushroom.

10. The Flying Camel - A personal favorite. As she is lying on her back and you are hammering her from your knees, you carefully balance yourself without using your arms to prop yourself up. You then proceed to flap your arms and let out a long, shrieking howl, much like a coyote. Strictly a class move.

11. Fishhook - A variation of the shocker in which you pull back towards the pussy after you stick your finger up her anus.

12. The Ram - Again, you're attacking from behind, when you start ramming her head against the wall in a rhythmic motion. The force of the wall should allow for deeper penetration. Very handy for those lulls in penile sensitivity.

13. Bismarck- This is another one involving oral sex. Right before you are about to cum, you pull out, shooting your load all over her face. Follow that with a punch and smear the blood and cum together.

14. Jelly Dougnut: A derivation of the Bismark. All you have to do is punch her in the nose while you are getting head.

15. The Woody Woodpecker: When a girl is sucking on your balls, tap the head of your cock on her forehead.

16. Dog in a Bathtub - This is a proper name for when you attempt to insert your nuts into a girl's ass. It is so named because it can be just as hard as keeping a dog in the tub while giving it a bath.

17. Tossing Salad - Another prison act where one person is forced to basically chow asshole with the help of whatever condiments are available, i.e. Jell-O, olive oil, etc. I'm never going to prison.

18. Rim Job: Another name for tossing salad. Focuses on the use of the tongue.

19. The Bucking Bronco- An all time classic. You start by going doggy style on a girl and then just when she is really enjoying it, you grab onto her tits or hips as tightly as possible and call her a big fat no-good worthless slob. More than likely, she will try to escape. This will give you the feeling of riding a bronco as she tries to buck you off.

20. Pink glove - This frequently happens during sex when a girl is not wet enough.
When you pull out to give her money, the inside of her twat sticks to your hog. Thus, the pink glove.

21. The Fountain of You - While sitting on her face and having her eat your ass, jerk off like a madman. Build up as much pressure as possible before releasing, spewing like a venerable geyser all over her face, neck and tits. (Better in her bed).

22. New York Style Taco - Anytime when you are so drunk that when you go down, you boot on her box. Happy trails.

23. The Dirty Sanchez - A time honored event in which while laying the bone doggie style, you insert Your finger into said woman's asshole, pull it out, wipe it across her upper lip leaving a thin, shit moustache. This makes her look like someone whose name would be Dirty Sanchez.

24. The Fish Eye - From behind, you shove your finger in her ass (or his if you are in prison). Thereupon she turns around in a one-eyed winking motion to see what the hell you are doing.

25. Tuna Melt - You're down on a chick lapping away and discover that it just happens to be the time of the month. By no means do you stop though. When the whale spews, tartar sauce with a hint of raspberry smothers your face.

26. Fur Ball - You're chomping away at some mighty trollop who has a mane between her legs the size of Lionel Richie's Afro, when a mammoth fur ball gets lodged in your throat and causes you to beat the piss out of her.

27. The ChiliDog - You take a shit on a girl's tits and then proceed to titty fuck her.

28. Gaylord Perry: Going to only one knuckle during an anal probe is for wimps. Make this famous knuckle ball pitcher proud and use multiple knuckles on that virgin corn hole. A minimum of two knuckles required (either on one finger or on multiple).

29. Rear Admiral: An absolute blast. When getting a chick from behind (while both partners standing), make sure you don't let her grab on to anything when she is bent over. Then, drive your hips into her backside so that you end up pushing her forward. The goal is to push her into a wall or table. It's almost as much fun to have her trip on her face on the floor. You become an Admiral when you can push her around the room without crashing into anything and not using your hands to grab onto her hips.

30. Glass Bottom Boat: Putting saran wrap over your partners face and proceeding to lay a hot shit there.

31. Ray-Bans: Put your testicles over her eye sockets while getting head. (Picture it: ass on forhead) It may be anatomically impossible, but it is definitely worth a try.

32. Snowmobile: Always a blast. When getting a girl while she's on all fours, sweep out her arms so she falls on her face.

33. Dutch Oven: Rather simple. Whenever you bust ass while in the sack pull the covers over both of your head so she can enjoy your pork and beans as well.

Nano Technology (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973390)


Timothy's electronic penis pump.

thank you, I'll be here all week. Please, tip your waitstaff.

may i suggest to the reviewer (3, Informative)

zephc (225327) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973402)

that you monitor the RSS feed for nanodot.org, a slash-like site run by the Foresight Institute, and focuses on nanotech news.

'Nanosystems' for the rest of us (5, Interesting)

teutonic_leech (596265) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973421)

I met Eric Drexler and Ralph Merkle at one of the Foresight Institute meetings a few years ago while I was living in Silicon Vally. I had always been a nanotech groupy and decided to shell out big bucks to buy Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation [amazon.com] which unfortunately totally was beyond my level of scientific education (Jim, I'm a doctor, not a physicist ;-) Anyway, this looks like something a bit more becoming for us 'pseudo science geeks' who know the basics about DNA, molecules, Angstrom, MOLs etc.. but don't have a deep scientific foundation. This is going to be the next frontier - well, actually it already is, and the better the wider public is informed the better. I am actually in the planning phase for a 3-part nanotech documentary, if anyone is interested in contributing, please let me know.

Re:'Nanosystems' for the rest of us (1)

ghutchis (7810) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974930)


Please talk to Mark and/or Daniel at some point. They're both busy, but they both care a lot. Mark intended this book to be exactly that--aimed at you and the general public.

Prof. Ratner teaches the general chemistry class at Northwestern every fall (Chem 101) and is excellent at figuring out how to put material at the right level.

I think they both put in the science background chapters for those who need them, but aimed the rest of it nicely to balance between those of us who know the field and those with some general science knowledge.

-Geoff

(Full disclosure: I'm a grad student of Prof. Ratner's.)

Bad jokespoiler ;P (-1, Troll)

sporty (27564) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973433)

Is the book printed by miniture machines?

Shouldnt' the font's for when we talk about this be at font size -5? (Suck it you css weenies)

Prey (3, Funny)

positive (12069) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973455)

Everything I know about nanotechnology I learned by reading Michael Crichton's "Prey". Uh.. I should probably find a better reference.

Re:Prey (2, Funny)

infinite9 (319274) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973714)

Everything I learned about nanotechnology I learned from 7 of 9. Every time someone gets hurt, she injects a little of that nanotechnology luvin' into them and they're better before the end of the episode. I have some microscopic organizms I'd like to inject into her.

Re:Prey (0)

KrON (2656) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973716)

You said the same thing about Dating and your copy of "The Ladies Man", and we all know how that ended up :P

The Diamond Age (1)

Kafir (215091) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974099)

Everything I know about nanotechnology I learned by reading Michael Crichton's "Prey".

Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age [amazon.com] is a better book, if not necessarily a better reference. It goes beyond the technology itself and deals with the consequences of a future where mass-production is so cheap as to make basic goods free.
And the nanotech in it seems to have been inspired largely by Drexler's Engines of Creation, which is an inspiring read until you realize it came out fifteen years ago.

Re:The Diamond Age (1)

Dylan Zimmerman (607218) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974986)

Well, nanotech as a whole was largely inspired by Richard Feynman. Read his lectures sometime. They're quite good.

Re:Prey (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5974624)

Crichton's "Congo" is the definitive reference on this topic for those that can imagine really tiny, hairless, non-talking gorillas with no diamonds.

Just had to be said. (5, Funny)

duguk (589689) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973556)

Nanotechnology, the next big thing.

Re:Just had to be said. (0, Flamebait)

cshark (673578) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973612)

It's over hyped speculitive tripe. The percieved problems with nano technology could be easily overcome by programmers who knew what they were doing.

Re:Just had to be said. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5974189)

Harumph ... karma for the guy that posts the book's title.

:-)

It's hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973742)

Nanotech book, date, Nanotech book, date, Nanotech book, date... a shit... let's go to the bookstore...

Disappointing review. (3, Funny)

FroMan (111520) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973819)

I was really hoping this review would cover interesting things. For instance, how nano has pico compatability modes. And, like searches in a file can use regular expressions.

Sure, some of that isn't teribley exciting nano technology, but it should be said. Nano may not have the best tech behind it, but for a simple text editor, it truly is easy to work with.

I didn't even see any pot shots at emacs or vi in there. Truly a disappointing review.

The problem with nano is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5973994)

... you can only edit very tiny files.

Autonomy - Freedom of Thought (2, Interesting)

EMH_Mark3 (305983) | more than 10 years ago | (#5973887)

For a great piece of fiction concerning nanotechnologies, patents, RIAA, virtual reality, quantum computing (e.g. everything people around here love/hate :), read Autonomy - Freedom of Thought [expressivefreedom.org]. It basically talks about a groups of scientists that 'escaped' to a virtual world to flee drastic copyright and patent laws that crippled their research in the 'real' world.

they promise to update it (2, Funny)

tcm614ce (570300) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974011)

the companion web site wasn't very exciting (though they promise to update it.)

What's this?! A unexciting web site that someone is promising to update? I've never heard of this practice before. Verrry Interesting...

What about mutations? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5974117)

Alpha particles and other such impacting on a chip, changing zeros to ones or vice versa could alter a nanobot's programming, effectively creating a mutation analogous to biological mutations. This could be a big problem with self-replicating types of nanobots. You don't have room to put in radiation shielding.

Destructive effects don't have to be the result of deliberate malicious programming; they could arise purely by accident.

Re:What about mutations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5974338)

You don't have room to put in radiation shielding.

So build them bigger with shielding. Oh. Wait.

Checksum the code (1)

Klaxton (609696) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974983)

There are plenty of ways to verify the integrity of a piece of software and to repair it if its damaged. One brute force technique, for example, would be to simply have multiple instances of the software in storage and a separate thread of execution for each instance. Then get them to vote on what actions to take. A broken program instance would be "voted off the island" and reinitialized.

Re:What about mutations? (1)

Dylan Zimmerman (607218) | more than 10 years ago | (#5975056)

How, exactly do you propose to make nanites self replicating? It's not like they have infinite energy, you know. Reproduction takes truly huge amounts of energy that has to come from somewhere.

Besides, you can always put error checking in. Checksums and such could be used to render any 'mutated' device completely inert. Simply hard-wire the checksum and deactivation circuitry into its processor such that if the hardwired checksum doesn't match the checksum from the software, it blows a fuse. Of course, actually _doing_ that could be a problem.

So, why not hardwire the program into the device? It's not like they will ever need to be updated. Build a kill signal into them such that if they ever become dangerous, they all blow some critical component at the same time.

Hrm.. (1)

PhoenixK7 (244984) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974717)

Didn't realize these guys were both here at NU. Based on the directory info Daniel is a visiting scholar in the WCAS (Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences), and Mark is a professor in the same department. I wonder why they're not part of the Materials Science & Engineering department (which I'm an undergrad, studying under).

The new nanofabrication [northwestern.edu] center is sweet.

Re: Northwestern (1)

ghutchis (7810) | more than 10 years ago | (#5974907)

Mark has long been in the chemistry department (he's been the chairman at least once). So yes, he's part of WCAS--he was also a dean in WCAS once.

IIRC, Daniel has been lecturing at Kellogg.

But since Mark is out of the country right now, I can't ask him.

In any case, there's a distinction between materials chemistry and materials science/engineering. Mark is certainly part of the Materials Research Center here at Northwestern, but lectures the general chemistry (Chem 101) class every fall. Quite good.

Cheers,
-Geoff

(I'm a grad student of Mark's.)

Yep, it's true... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5974945)

Nanotech, the next big thing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...