Thursday, October 21, 2010

Peter Thiel's Very Hot Topic!

I have recently read a very charged article concenring the nature of a $100,000 grant to drop out of school. But more details, of course.

The grant comes from the mind of a young philanthropist, the creater of pay pal, and we can consider his "grant" as an attempt to stimulate the economy and change society. The mans name of course is Peter Thiel.

http://www.slate.com/id/2271265/

The article which i have come across is essentially a critique of the entire plan. The author Jacob Weisberg argues that what we are seeing in this "Thiel grant" is the attempt of a narcissistic young billionaire to "clone him self", or perhaps justify his life style, by empowering young students to drop out of school and try to start a tech business of some type. That of course is the requirement of the grants, that you be young, in school, drop out and start a tech business. As applicants submit (this October applications start) to the fund, a selection of 20 people under 20 years old old will be selected next year and given money to drop out of school and start their ventures.

My intention in writing this post is to explore a bit more the arguments presented by Jacob and express my opinion that his perception of this instance might be skewed unnecessarily. In the article Jacob rails against Thiels character and brings up many points which would reflect a greedy and selfish libertarian perspective where women and welfare and democracy inhibit freedom. Indeed it is familiar to the event which is written of Jacob on wikipedia where he refused an offer to join the skull & bones fraternity and stated their exclusion of women as his reason. Much Weisberg's comment come off sounding like a form of political character assassinations rather then a thought provoking dialog. Perhaps he seeks to advertise the topic. I do not argue directly for Thiel's character as a general thing, nor his philosophies, rather i wish to address more underlying aspects of the whole scenario, things outside the limited perspective of a system frozen in time to be interpreted. By the way, i highly suggest that you read the article (posted above) before continuing.

From my perspective there is much more to be gathered and seen from the behavior of this particular liberal philanthropist then the elements of a great opinion rant on the behavioral qualities of dysfunctional libertarians. The reason that there is much more to gather is because outside of his character and his form of approach his affect will be felt in ways which we cannot translate directly form an analysis of his character, especially one which is bias. Indeed, we cannot even be certain that the literal presentations of what Peter intends accurately match up to what he intends, and thus to focus on the analysis of his character may be temporarily necessiary to satisfy the needs of some but in the end it is a distracting succession of notions. By this i mean that what he intends to do via his actions and actually what happens are not directly equivalent, and further what comes of his intention is not necessarily what he intends. What comes will of course be those endeavors which are granted monetary assistance by the Thiel Foundation. The story to come of those endeavors will shape how it is that the character of Peter is interpreted, and whats relevant to Jacob in this is that it will inform a piece of public perception of the liberal human. God forbid if more liberals get support.

But we must remember...the world at large is not so weak as to move in great measure on the dream of only one and stay fixed in that way. His personality and philosphy are generally flawed in some ways, as Jacob does point out, yet we should not underestimate the force of Thiels will and the commitment of his assets. What the man has is a dream, a dream which is shared among many people which does indeed contain aspects of good and focuses on addressing potentially emotional issues and challenges. Change, especially in relation to industry, technology and the lives of people, is inevitable and required for our sustained existence. To advocate from any point for an engagement with these issues is always beneficial and should be encouraged on the grounds of a mutual agreement of the opportunity and challenges that need to be faced outside of the "business as usual" mindset. However this dream is but a single element in our collective dreaming on this planet, and as that element it will be a catalyst for unpredictable results as the "sub group" of the planet's dream spreads and mingles with those previously unconcerned... Which is the affect of investment.

There are a few points of Jacobs point that need to be discussed in further depth from all sides... The first of which is the notion of the stifling of intellectual development. Our education system is flawed and the networking and learning opportunity which take place at "universities" are not the only ways to drive society. Perhaps one's career influences their perception of access and freedom, one's perception of how it is that can be done. Indeed i believe that it is relevant to mention that Jacob him self attended Yale university and we must remember that his undergraduate experience at that institution was remarkably different then the general university student... and like i was saying, the opportunities to collaborate and learn / network do not need to take place within universities only. All around the country, the world even, open access to technology is empowering the beginnings of the maker movement, and i have much faith that such a movement can produce a radically new interpretation of education and industry (see http://www.schoolfactory.org/). This does not mean that the institutions within the education system at large are all faulty systems, for much of research and development, much of basic engineering and political knowledge comes from the pursuit in academics. Universities are still hot beds for innovation, and it is wise for one such as Peter to attempt to capitalize on that hot bed. Yet this wisdom is not merely in terms of Peter's self interest, but of the interest of all of those which the investment shall impact. Don't forget that.
However, for anyone that has a mind of knowing when something "okay" (our education system) can become something much better it is easy to see ways in which our system flawed. Perhaps it is not merely the education systems but more so the culture in general, for the lack of motivation and confusion about ones purpose in the world seem to be the main drawbacks of the current system.

Also, there is the notion of Jacob's hostile perception of tech start ups. I am tempted to find if he has any suggestions as to how it is that investments should be made because it is dangerous to argue against investing in technology given the foreboding economic battles that are to be fought for 21st century technology industry leadership. Perhaps he feels that the physical economy of the US and our "services" will suffice to provide the foundations for a thriving economy without radical or questionable private investment outside of the status quo, perhaps he sees that there is already a solution in place to develop a growing sense of welfare. Perhaps he does not truly believe that young individuals have the flexibility to find new systems and produce useful results without years of schooling and academic regulation. A mature individual then is one which is indoctrinated with the culture of the university. I disagree with most notions about our current economy and sense of wealth, and feel that it is necessary for open access to technology and massive individual research and manufacturing potential to re-define the global politic and economy, as well as re define education. Pay-pal it self is a wonderful tool that acts as a model and exemplifed "proof of concept" method of direct monitary transfer between individuals... although there is the middle man of pay-pal it self. This model essentially allows monetary transfer to not require physical presence, and thus gives increased access for many to the global market exchange. Naturally we can see that this technology enables entities of all types to have an advantage. Regardless of what any one says there is issues with our economy that need to be address, issues which have to to with our understanding of value, investments, returns and exchange. For anyone who has studied chinas economic plans for the next few decades we will know that there is a strong emphasis in using excessive savings to invest in high-tech endeavors and infrastructure to continue increasing Chinese global recognition as both a manufacturer and also a product developer.

The third and last thing is the bais of Jacob that seems to indicate he thinks it's unhealthy to want to make a useful novel product (system) and for it to generate great returns. I think this type of attitude fosters a type of "us and them" that forges the opportunity for sharing our understanding of global events, or in other words creating a culture which empowers people with lots of wealth to invest in human creativity, welfare and achievement. Perhaps there are many that would obtain the grant who do not wish to make money purely for greed but rather seek to re-define our culture through technology. Maybe thats what Jacob is afraid of, i know a lot of people are afraid of this and claim that our current standard of welfare is in danger of collapsing... but we cannot maintain it if our economy falls apart. I do not know the man but in reading his article i found it quite sad that he seemed to rail so hard against Peter's character, using Peter's foundation as an almost arbitrary entrance into a complaining rant, when there is so much opportunity for a more important discussion that has to do with creativity, access and empowerment of individuals. But perhaps it is more necessary to continue to maintain the "values of the middle-class"... Whatever that means.

I do not think that some liberal infection will afflict all those who receive a grant. What we are seeing because of this movement of Peter is the act of him growing up, naturally he will go through various stages in his life where what he perceives as relevant will shift. You can be certain that it is better to have him investing in people then not though, wouldn't you agree?

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Bill Foster

Greetings,

So last week (or was it the week before that?) i heard rumor of a bill, H.R. 6003, which has been submitted and scheduled for committee. This bill, ahh yes this bill represents a first glimmer at what will be the USA economy of the 21st century. Indeed i must say that within the very framework hidden within the bill is the global economy of the new world.

Let us start by saying that what this bill represents is nothing which citizens cannot do them selves. I would advise you to read over the bill before continuing. They seek to establish a non profit, and thus, as a non-profit they will assign their employees and attempt to secure their mission. Ten years is what we find stated in the proposition. However, we should take note that a federal endeavor is granted with a type of "freedom" in that the funds are given not in accordance with a profit to be made directly but for a type of "goodness" that might come, so failure is more of an option then if it were a private endeavor.

What the bill calls for is the creation of several hundred "Fab Labs" over the next ten years, let us look at what they are defining:

"(c) Definitions- In this section, the term ‘Fabrication Laboratory’ also referred to as a ‘Fab Lab’ means a facility containing a variety of manufacturing and other fabrication tools operable by means of digital input as well as the software and computers required to design for and operate those tools. These labs serve a broad range of purposes, but each allow for clear guidelines for how members of the local community, local businesses, and academic or educational purposes can be pursued with the labs’ resources consistent with a charter to be established by the NFLN."

Obviously almost any industrial process can fall under this definition. And of particular interest to us is the notion that these labs may be biased in terms of which members of the community can access them. For example, what if the limited resources of the labs are contracted to some business in particular, whereby that business gains some type of competitive advantage on another member in the community. Soon, if that other member is driven to loose profits they will, in some sense, see this as them being attacked by the federal government. They will see that they do not have access to a fab-lab like the other company, and they might not have the financial resources necessary to invest in personnel and technology to compete. These types of considerations always arise when there are limited resources to go around, be they raw or technological.

We might look more deeply at the meaning behind this bill. Maybe there will be restrictions in that any community entity is limited in terms of total time they can use the equipment at the fab lab. My only concern here is that these labs will be too popular, too powerful and in demand. I mean they are mixing technology, learning, creation and welfare together... obviously they are going to need to offer access to the community at some type of cost that is lower then say, Intel's "fab labs", otherwise the endeavor would be kind of meaningless.

The charter they mention is the vague point, it is the point that has yet to come for us to see, the part whos form we can only intuit at this point. I have requested from Bill Foster, the bill's author, to speak with him for more information about the bill. Hopefully i can learn more about whats driving him and what larger plans he has behind this.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Late Winter Nanotube Dreams

I had a discussion with Larry James, proprietor of wulfdesign, concerning a simple experiment to integrate nanotechnology into user products. Larry owns a 3-d printer, a maker bot, and if you are not familiar with the culture and movement surrounding this then i suggest you look into it.

Basically, we talked about getting his 3-d printer to print nano-enabled products, particularly single walled CNT embedded in ABS polymer. After some processing considerations I realized that the best way to get the SWNT homogeneously mixed was to put nanotubes in solution into an ABS powder, or even have a solution of SWNT from which ABS polymerization reaction takes place. I also had ideas of nanotubes with organic complexes (polymers) at the ends that would help align SWNT while in solution with electric current... but thats a different story..

But like i was saying, processing considerations. It turns out that the 3-d printer only takes 3mm round rod feed, and we don't have the means to produce the 3mm rounds.
Larry came up with the idea of using acetone to dissolve the outer layer of finished produced and then brush on nanotube. This is an interesting idea, but the fact that we could not get at the total volume of the wire was getting to me. I'm sure there is something interesting to test with the painted tubes, but i believe that an investment this time in the ability to make 3mm round rod ABS plastic would be more beneficial for everyone at large. DIY polymer wire fabricator.

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Lewigie Galaxy training for the micro domain perception

The title is aptly named.

On watching a video here of a new game for the Nintendo wii is was struck by the nature of space and material patterns. it was vary similar, and expendable, to many nano and micro scale features of the world around us.

we are getting people's mind exercised in these domains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjFfI_9-k3s&feature=channel

Economist

I need someone with experience articulating economic systems in fine detail.

Of course, i could do it my self but sometimes there must be a balance of interests.

Revolution or Evolution?

I have encountered a few reoccurring perceptions of nanotechnology.

The first, which is waning fast (or at least changing forms), is the "revolution" perception. In this perception research and development of nanotechnology is assumed to reach revolutionary industry changing status quickly and forcefully. Beyond the descriptions of how this will occur (molecular manufacturing...e.c.t) there is consensus from those who follow this view that nanotechnology is both highly useful and provides superior functionality that will be quickly integrated into industry.

The second group are the nay-sayers. They claim that "nanotech" is a buzz word, a manufactured term used by savvy money hungry researchers attempting to entice policymakers into giving them money for their projects. Obviously, they tout, material scientists and engineers, molecular chemist and engineers, pharmaceutical companies and pretty much anyone looking to continue research has already been doing "nanotechnology" for quite a few decades. They attribute the "growth" of nanotechnology and nanoscice as merely the growth of the label, failing to see it as something novel. Advances in instrumentation and reduction in the cost caused an increase in the number of researchers with access to the nanorealm, and hence the growth of a label. To them it is simple, nano-claiming folk are charlatans wich may or may not harm the development of advanced technologies by over-selling to the public.

Also, in quick mention, there are hard researchers them selves. Generally they are so bogged in managing their projects they have hardly any time to form any perception outside of the scientific and pragmatic... Until it comes time for them to feel entitled to be given their dues. Think shortly of failed pharmaceutical companies and you will know what i mean.

I personally believe both of these groups approach the idea from the wrong direction. They each of course have their uses, the revolutionaries enticing larger audiences and spurring their imaginations, and the nay-sayers keeping anything from going too far into unfamiliar territory, managing risk. And there is always risk, be it for industry or academic research groups, but they fundamentally miss the whole point.

We need to take inventory of the reality of the situation, a reality where the world is not spurred into joy and unity from the out-puts of the lab, nor does the I-phone and it's cleverly constructed and competitive smart phone industry bring about the enlightenment, rather what we have seen is the development of tools to engage with and increase our understanding of natural phenomena. Indeed, "nanoscience" is merely the natural progression of "science" into domains further and further to the point of finest measure, whereby the recursive nature of the search increases the resolution of that metric as we progress. But the landscape of that metric is vast indeed... Although much of the world is addicted to technology, that does not mean that much of the world is necessarily technologically progressive. Rather, much of the technologically consuming world is still best understood in terms of individuals working towards local goals (i.e house payments, bank account).Undoubtedly our increasingly technological cultures give us access to information and increases our connectivity, yet one must not be hasty as to claiming that a culture which consumes technology is capable of realizing the full potential of technology as an abstract essence.

And much is the same for nanotechnology, nanoscience.
For anyone that has watched the progress of the last ten years it is obvious that within the nano realm there is so much variance as to how matter can arrange and the properties that this entails that to make any type of functional sense of this will take more then fabricating in mass quantity carbon nanotubes. The sheer size of the domain and it's sensitive nature will cause stark division among developers of nano-systems as to what is appropriate or possible. There will be those who increase the performance of familiar structures, and there will be those who seek to create novel and powerful systems that appear at times foreign. And of course, between these two extremes will be the majority.

So it is inline with these thoughts that i believe that nanotechnology will not be a revolutionary disruptive movement. It will an evolutionary movement, and it's products will not be brought to the betterment of all but to the betterment of the few (and i don't mean people specifically, also industry). And this may still promote benefit, for consumers themselves do not consume in all forms but only those which they are most interested in, or most familiar with. Thus, smart phones and other devices akin to mobile computing and sensing will definitely increase in sophistication because of nanotechnology. Industrial coatings and functionzation of surfaces will also come to pass and become mainstream. Development of composite materials with nanoengineered component is another sector that finds ground even now. But the most significant technologies, those outside of the interests of most folk, those which have the opportunity to re-define what it means to be creative creatures, those will not come to pass so quickly and without problems.

Yet it is in those foreign and extreme technologies where there is much mystery, and perhaps one day we will have people living 300 years.... yet not without their never ending nano-therapy sessions.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Nanotechnology and engineering: a divide of pragmatism and perspective.

Over the past ten years there has been considerable thought and investment by nations all over the world to develop education programs and economic products with a focus on nanotechnology. Much needs to be reviewed before we can tell if these investments have produced anything of a real return yet, and indeed much of the potential that is seen (and touted)in nanotechnology is still within the "possible" applications which have not yet been developed. But this is changing quickly.
I take it that anyone here reading this is familiar with the parameters which define nanotechnology and nano science, as well as the essence of ambiguity, truthfully i am tired of writing the definitions and think it's time for the next stage of the discussion (i dialog between a nano-informed public).

Both public and private sectors have experienced this precedent of investment and we must realize that the strategies employed by each group are different and lead to a different understanding of a nanotechnology based industry / economy. These proclivities that are developed now will form the competitive landscape for the future, and it is this landscape which will drive the nano tech industry. And this is very important for us to look at closer, for within that landscape exists not the open and free possibility of technology, but rather those forms of value that have found a way to be... Not all possible technologies, simply the "used" and "relevant" technologies. Consider that there is the potential in these coming decades that incredibly useful (or powerful) technologies will be overlooked in favor for the interests of those who already have systems and capital in place and seek only to make profit while managing their perceived risk, not necessarily working for our best interests. As an example, a silicon chip manufacturing company might invest now in studying nano-structures and nano-property enabling processes that improve their current technology. And this is to be expected. Private companies generally exist in a state of competition, and it is rare that "free research" can be done which is outside of what is familiar to the company, indeed it is unwise within the framework that companies use to manage risks. In the case of the silicon chip manufacture they would have already invested millions in processing / fabrication equipment that is the foundation of their current technology, and any investment that would require a restructuring of parts of the production line will be met with disapproval and carry too much risk. Thus, in terms of nanotechnology, the company will be led to find methods of improving their current products without having to adjust their processing or change the foundations of their technology methods too much. An example might be boosting the capabilities of lithography masking technology, or finding ways to characterize their current products faster and with more reliability(product control).. Indeed there is much to be said about the potentials for discoveries in one field to transfer over to others but basing the potential for benefit on that is it self risky...

There is also the capacity for the research that a company would do for their own products to innately be applicable to diverse fields, and this is good but I still believe that there is a very different perspective of nanotechnology fostered within groups which are seeking profit in the short term, and that these perspectives generally have the potential to over-look other possible discoveries and technologies.


Contrary to a private company we can think of a start-up based endeavors that come out of university research funded by federal grant money (and sometimes companies) that seek to bring to market novel technologies or methods that have the potential to “change the game”. As an example there is a company called Vista Therapeutics which is seeking to use it's background in material science and nanotechnology to develop a novel real time bio marker sensor that is implantable and provides live display of data wirelessly. Whats more is they seek to sense more then 100 bio markers in parallel in the same device. This technology takes a radically different approach that is totally dependent on novel nanoscale system of signal transduction, and all of the research and engineering they do is focused on bringing those nano-potentials to market. If you are looking for a company that demonstrates an attempt to incorporate nanotechnology into a novel device with very impressive performance then look into them.

In general though we are missing a very vital piece of the puzzle. There is very little discussion between engineers and researchers about producing materials / structures which have properties the engineers want yet are not available. And if there is some, it's not enough, and of a fallow type. For example, an aerospace engineering compy might say to the research community at large, “we are seeking these properties, if you find them and can produce materials with them let us know”... They will not make statements like this about “non-existent” materials or structures because it is too hypothetical and impractical for most engineering minds. Rather they will ask for materials or properties which are “more feasible” and provided only modest boost to performance.
A good example of where dialogs could be shifted is within robot technologies, and particular android / telepresence robot systems. Right now the entire endeavor of android robots is stuck trying to make autonomous systems, and these systems use way too much energy and cannot store enough without increasing weight to unacceptable standards. Within this camp is a flurry of people seeking to find ways to make robots sense and act using computer science, and there is less of a incentive to find new materials and systems that would increase performance or open up new avenues of sensing and acting. Indeed i would say that the trend of incorporated the body design into the intelligence plan for the robot is not a practice that has gained majority ground (seen CHRONOS). An example that shall soon come to fruit is electronic skins that has thousands of sensors over a small area. This “skin” will dramatically increase the amount of data that the robot can sense, and thus we might expect that any robot or device that employs this technology will have some measure of increased capacity / functionality. I may be wrong though, I'm not an engineer.
Be that as it may, what we see in the robot community is engineers looking to take already available technology and combine them into interesting forms.. I do believe that this is partly due to the focus on creating the robot “brain”. Who would invest in sophisticated robot bodies if there is no brain to control them? And to do both in parallel... too risky eh? An alternative to this would be to develop telepresence robotic systems with very little autonomy and focus on the mechanical / sensing and actuation design and capabilities of the robot. This will free up thought and “human work hours” from the computational side and move it into the more physical aspects. Thus, we might find robots one day that have huge sensory capabilities and very flexible and powerful actuation capabilities, and with humans controlling them we wont need to worry about the autonomy or the brain as much. And what a research platform this would be to record and save the data from human use (machine learning, anyone?) So if the time then comes to implement an autonomous version we will have already done much work in streamlining the physical architecture of android robotics, and the brain of the autonomous bot will be easier to integrate into the system. Indeed work in the physical side may very well inspire work on the brain side. But these are my personal opinions.


All in all, the potential in nanotechnology is something that no one can refute (and If you do please send me more info about it), yet we are at a loss due to the vast nature of the nano-realm as to the correct way for integration into useful products. What we need to do is get engineers minds working outside of the box, we need to get them lusting after the potentials that “might” be. For now, there are far too many pessimistic engineers only concerned with their currently available technology, and they say what is possible is “nice” but give no real thought into using it. We need to break that pattern, we need creativity and inspiration to flow and bring from out that nano-world those devices which will benefit our goal as a global species... and perhaps one day galactic.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Industrial Nanotechnology Equipment

Beyond the challenges faced in designing useful nano systems there is in parallel the challenge of fabricating nano engineered devices and materials at economically feasible levels. Inside of the lab it is a far different world then inside the industrial process room. Indeed we find that it is the concept of rate which brings to play those extra factors in the industrial process that cannot be controlled outside of the lab environment.
By rate we mean the rate of production for a given structure. These rates are dependent upon many things, such as the ability to channel various energetic events into the correct sequence and form so as to produce a known and desired structure. In essence that is the art of industry, to produce those energetic events required.

However...

There is also something to say as to the nature of fuzziness. Consider the similarities and differences between lab and industry and hold them both in your mind simultaneously. You will see that there are places where the two are indistinguishable, whereby a lab setting can become an industrial setting with the right industrial technology. Considering "clean rooms" and lithography / micro-fabrication facilities we can find some close parallels. The tolerances for these settings are of an extreme nature, and it is this nature which requires that control to be of a equal degree. Real control then, to take dominion over physical systems, is found through having the knowledge and technology required to fabricate in known measure and feature the structures of the end product.

This is all very general and vague but i do believe it helps set up the mental starting points to think about what a "nanotechnology" industry is. This is a very important question, and needless to say the hype surrounding the technology will come to pass as the integration of nano-science-technology into society keeps marching on. We could say that the public wont have a dialog because it is too consumed with enough dialogs already. Thus we will find a very "private" nanotech revolution..

Consider a simple reality scenrio. Vista Therapeutics.

I found out about this company in march and have been very excited to read about the work they are involved in. One of their primary goals is going to be the development of robust bio sensors that can continuously monitor blood-stream contents and deliver on the spot display of information. They are dealing with an extremely sensitive technology where they appear to be capitalizing on the signal transduction properties of bio-marker-affinity functonalized nano wires as the "meat" of their technology.

Consider what they are going to need. They will need both micro fabricated structures as well as nanostructures and they will need to assemble all of these together into one functioning unit. Where will they get the nano-wires and how will they check for quality assurance? They want a multi-species real time "display and sense" of blood stream constituents, and from what i recall they wanted to test for hundreds of markers in parallel. That is a very complex device.

Consider just one part of the production of these devices: functionalizing the nano-wires.... Mass surface modification of nano structures. How much will they need? Where will it be produced? These are interesting financial analysis metrics.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Testing the mechanical properties of loose "extended" organic ligands on 0d nanoparticles

I am doing a literature review looking for information on a research project i am going to propose late this summer / early fall. I am interested in a simple test of the mechanical properties of extended ligands coming off gold nanoparticles 4-12nm in size.

The tircky part is that i do not want to test the entire shell of the nanoparticle, doing typical "compression" mechanical tests with an afm, rather i want to functionalize the nanoparticles with "laterally extended domains" which extend off the nanoparticle some 100 nanometers. Thus, i am faced with the challenge of synthesis of these nanoparticles. I believe the best route at this point given my skills is to cap with amines or mercaptoids and then do a replacement reaction with a agent that has a long carbon chain. The trick will be to do the reaction with such a small amount of regent (relative to the number of np in solution) such that only small portions of the np are covered. This may produce the desired result. Next would be to put these on a substrate and image with afm, trying to find an isolate nanoparticle to probe. Once found, the afm tip will be dragged across the extended domain, measuring the force resistance. Other characterizations can be done as well.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Leap frogging

With all the start ups in India revolving around producing tablets and components for tablets i am wondering if in 50 years from now the USA will be stuck with a bunch of legacy equipment as other countries start producing objects / service which have more value.

I guess USA corps could just sell their assets and re-invest. Risky behavior, most likely they will try to cling until they die.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

First Job

Yesterday i completed my first arrangement for a small bit of scientific work. We will be doing contact angle measurements for some surfaces. Nothing much, but i made the deal my self by connecting industry and academia.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Object Subscription

Sonntag Rosental from ligi on Vimeo.

Idea Storm

Things never stop changing, this is obvious. The rate of change may flux, but we shall not become incumbent in one way if we are to survive. With this in mind, all systems Enexseenge seeks to establish are taken with the consideration that things change. Systems degrade, purposes change and everything is in constant flux. The goal of Enexseenge is to adapt. Leveraging network capital allow us to aggregate the best practices from experts and devise realistic planning scenarios. Data management is key and Google is looked towards as a pioneer and advisor in the management of large sets of public real time data.

Human beings are a resource we should never forget. Our institutes and group endeavors will always provide an avenue for collective expression. Let us work together.

http://www.figa.org/