Well, thank you very much for that very flattering introduction. And with that, I think we can start on the talk. I decided I hope I'm not being too presumptuous by talking about science, technology, and exaltation. And I must confess, I was quite taken with the quote, as man now is, God once was. As God now is, man might may be. One of the things that happens when I talk about nanotechnology is I have to be very careful about what I say. I have to say, well, when we develop molecular nanorobotics and we have nanomedicine, why we will have good health, extended good health. So I can't say anything like we'll have good health for a very long period of time. How many people here want to be alive and healthy 200 years from now, 10,000 years from now? Heat death of the universe? Yeah, I wouldn't be able to say those kind of things in front of most audiences that wouldn't be received very well most of the time. Most people, that's not sort of considered good health is as far as I usually go. But I think with this audience, we can go a little bit farther than that.  And then hopefully, at that point, we'll have gotten a bunch of stuff in that we'll get people interested and hopefully excited. And then we'll have time for questions and discussions and things like that. So then you can all pop in and say, hey, what about this or that or the other? So we'll start out by talking about exponential trends in manufacturing. And we've seen three of them, three big ones, over the past many decades in complexity, precision, and cost. The complexity of things that we can manufacture has been getting, well, more complex. And the precision has been getting more precise. And the cost has been shrinking. And those trends have been going along exponentially. And we're also seeing those trends in 3D printing. So 3D printing has been showing trends. Oh, yeah, that'd be great. We've also been seeing those trends in 3D printing. We've been watching 3D printers just take off. So everyone wants to get into the 3D printing business because, oh, there's lots of money to be made. It's the computer revolution all over. You remember the home hobbyists and computers? Atari 800s, Radio Shack.  Too young, OK. Anyway, there used to be, oh, a couple of you do remember those things. Yep, they used to have those. We're doing the same thing with the 3D printers. So 3D printers can make all kinds of stuff. And people are making them all over the place. They're customized, wonderful gizmos and knickknacks and things. This is how a 3D printer works. You're seeing the printhead of a 3D printer. What it is is it's extruding hot plastic through a very small hole, about a 500 micron exit hole. And it's doing it with 50 micron accuracy. So it's very accurate. 50 microns, very accurate. Yeah, right.  So you can see there it is. It's finishing off the parts, and it made some parts. So you can make all kinds of stuff that way. And people are, and they're having a great deal of fun. So now we see a scanning tunneling microscope. And a scanning tunneling microscope is essentially a really, really sharp pointed stick. And there you see we're zooming in. And you see a scale bar here. The scale bar is one micron. So that sharp pointed stick is really sharp. And the end, this is a very dull scanning tunneling microscope. The end is huge. It's 100 nanometers across. A proper scanning tunneling microscope, I just got this off the web. Nice, easy to illustrate scanning tunneling microscope. A proper scanning tunneling microscope would have a sharp tip that came down to one atom. So that's that scanning tunneling microscope. And you can build things using the same technique. You can use the scanning tunneling microscope to put little things on surfaces. The first one was built in 1981. So they're fairly recent historically. We've only had them since, well, since 1981. And people have been having a lot of fun. The two guys who did it got the Nobel Prize in physics. So these are very snazzy devices that are very amazing. And here's a picture of how one works. It has a very sharp pointed tip. It moves the sharp pointed tip over the surface. You can scan the surface. You can look at it. You can get pictures of the surface. And as I said, the atom of the tip of the sharp pointed stick can be used to build up a picture because it's a little bit of a tunneling current that flows from the tip to the surface. And here are some things that people built using scanning tunneling microscopes. Not only can you scan the surface, but you can push atoms around on the surface. Isn't that cute? So they've been pushing atoms around on surfaces. And in the upper left-hand corner, you see the letters IBM spelled out in xenon atoms on a nickel surface. Ooh, spiffy. And other people, that was the first one, all the physicists were going, what? You can move atoms around? You can touch atoms and move atoms?  Are they marbles or something? Jeez, what is this? And the moment they did that, of course, other people had to get into the act. And they spelled out logos of various research laboratories and made little structures and ponds and Star Trek logos and a hand going, you know, live long and prosper. So that was fun. And then, of course, moving away from that again, getting back to the 3D printing, 3D printers can, well, I mean, conceptually, 3D printers, what are they gonna be doing in the future? Right now, 3D printers are big, but in the future, instead of having one big 3D printer, we'll have large numbers of very small 3D printers, and then they'll be moving around atoms. So you'll have lots and lots and lots of parallel small 3D printers moving around lots and lots and lots of atoms, and that will let you build things where every atom is in the right place. Isn't that interesting? So as Richard Feynman put it back in 1959 in a very famous talk called There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. By the way, how many people have read There's Plenty of Room at the Bah, Lincoln's read it, yeah. How many people read, oh, a couple of hands have gone up? Yes, okay, for the rest of you, it's vintage Feynman. You'll love it. But essentially, what he said is, hey, you know, nothing in the laws of physics prevents you from arranging atoms one by one the way you want. Geez, it's basic physics. Anyone would know that. Any Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1959 would understand that. And now, a few decades later, the rest of us understand it as well. So we're beginning to understand that and we're beginning to understand that we will be able to arrange atoms any way we want. That's a new manufacturing technology. It's 3D printers on steroids. Another 20 years, something like that, 25 years. We'll have this. Okay, we'll be able to arrange atoms. That's nice. What does that mean? Well, we'll be able to build nanocomputers, really powerful computers. That's one thing. You know the computer revolution, Moore's Law and all that? It's gonna keep going for a couple more decades. You know how the computer revolution has been? Think about 20, 30 years ago, the computer revolution. Now take that and plot it out another 20, 30 years. Got that picture in your mind? Okay, good. Now take all of the other technologies and imagine them following Moore's Law for 20, 30 years. We're gonna have medical nanorobots. We're gonna have comprehensive environmental remediation. We'll be able to clean up all the messes. Inexpensive clean power, personal spacecraft. How many of you wanna go out into the solar system and putter around? You, personally. Yep, we'll make a pass of limitation, yeah. Okay, I gather a lot of you would enjoy doing that. Ultra high yield agriculture, zero pollution manufacturing. Today's manufacturing pollutes. It's not that manufacturers want a pollute, it's that they don't have a technology that will let them make things without polluting. If you've got the ability to arrange atoms the way you want, you don't pollute. You turn the sulfur into bricks of sulfur and sell a sulfur on the sulfur market, if nothing else. Okay, so computers will each eat. What do I mean by cheap? A one liter molecular computer with 10 to the 18th logic elements, 10 to the 18th. That's a billion billion transistors in it. It might cost a few dollars. That would be nice. That's 10 to the 27th logic operations per second at one gigahertz. Now, if you use standard conventional irreversible logic operations, that would be three million watts out of a cubic liter. To give you a feel for that, a hairdryer is about 1,000 watts. So three million watts would be about 3,000 hairdryers from a cubic liter. It might get a little bit hot. The magic melting supercomputer. But don't worry, we're gonna have something called thermodynamically reversible computing. I'm not gonna explain that because it would take another hour's talk. It'll work, don't worry. And that'll get the energy down to a couple of watts, something like that. So we'll have a lot of computing power. And now I'm gonna date the slide. That's about 10 million blue gene supercomputers at 100 million a pop, all running in parallel. So that's a lot of computing power, which is, and it's also roughly the computational power of 10 to the 11th humans. We have about 10 to the 10th humans on the planet. I mean, 10 billion. I mean, for the accuracy of this calculation, the human population is 10 billion, okay? So that's 10 times the human population of the planet. Cubic liter, 10 times the computing power of the planet. Exaltation, huh? Yeah, interesting. Oh, and then the medical nanorobotics. Yeah, those things. So we'll have nifty gizmos. That's a respirocyte, and that's a microbivore, and that's a typical human cell. There's no such thing as a typical human cell, by the way. But I drew one anyway, just so you'd have a feeling for the size. And let's see if this works. Oh, it's working. So we inject a dose of microbivores. Can we see this sort of flashing around a little bit? Oh, there it is. There's a microbivore, excuse me, a respirocyte. Sorry, respirocyte. What is a respirocyte? I hear you cry. Well, if you can arrange atoms, you can build diamond and you can make about a one micron sphere, which would be made out of diamond and would be able to hold compressed oxygen at about 1,000 atmospheres. And you could inject the dose of these things, billions and billions, if I can use that phrase. I don't think there's a copyright on it. And then they would float around in your body and they would release oxygen in your tissues when your tissues needed it. And they would absorb carbon dioxide in the tissues and release it in the lungs so you would exhale the carbon dioxide. They'd be artificial red blood cells. Only they'd have over 100 times the capacity of your ordinary red blood cells, which means that you could hold your breath for about an hour. Okay, I can't hold my breath for a long, but with these gadgets you could. So you could sit at the bottom of a pool for an hour, which sounds very exciting. Or if you were prone to heart attacks and you'd been injected with a bunch of these devices and you had a heart attack, instead of keeling over, which is normally what you do if you have a heart attack, you would go, oh, my heart has stopped. Hello, doc. My heart has stopped. Get down to the emergency room now, okay. And you would get down to the emergency room now because you'd only have an hour. And having an hour makes a big difference because having an hour is a lot better than thump.  After persuading them that, yes, that really is true. Call your doctor and he'd explain it. They would get busy and start treating you. So these devices would have, I think, a big impact on improvement. How many of you want to have this device available before you have the heart attack? Ah, yeah. How many people expect to be alive and healthy and well just conventionally for like 30 years? Ah, okay, so yes. Yeah, long-term planning is one of the things that would be useful with these devices. This is mycrobivores. These are artificial white blood cells and essentially they're similar nanomedical devices and what they do is they have little robotic arms with little antibodies on their tips that bind to antigens on nasty bacteria and sweep them into their maw and there it is being swept and then it closes upon them and then they get diced, sliced up and digestive enzymes are dropped in on them and then once they've been reduced to harmless amino acids and water and things like that, they're extruded. You can eliminate an infection, something like 100 times more rapidly than regular white blood cells with these little gadgets so they can just sweep the circulatory system clear very rapidly and very effectively. So again, medical capabilities that are a lot better than what we've got now and to sort of summarize the difference, some medical treatments are not atomically precise, other medical treatments are atomically precise and some medical treatments provide little control and some medical treatments provide sophisticated control. So if you have little control and it's not atomically precise, oh, well that's not very good, that's the wrecking ball. Who cares? But if you have little control and it's atomically precise, that's pharmaceuticals. Those do pretty good things and if you have sophisticated control but it's not atomically precise, that's a surgeon's scalpel which from the point of view of a cell is better for ripping and tearing than it is for healing and curing and if you have sophisticated control with molecular computers and it's atomically precise, you have medical nanorobots which usher in a revolution in medicine. Oh, and then we have mortality rates. I think I'll just skip this slide. This shows mortality rates. It turns out that a 10-year-old child has a mortality rate that is about one chance in 10,000 of dying per year when they're 10 years old. So biological systems when they're in peak performance and properly maintained can actually have a mortality rate that's so low that if you could maintain the biological system in good working order and prevent aging, you'd have a lifespan of five, 6,000 years right there. Bang. Wouldn't need any of this fancy nanotechnology or anything. We just have properly working biological molecular machinery but we do age which is a shame. Anyway, getting back to the medical nanorobots. Today, the big problem is that cells are self-repairing and because they're self-repairing, once they stop metabolizing, once they stop respiring, they can't self-repair themselves which means the moment they stop respiring, they are then set on a downwards trajectory from which they cannot recover. That's it, it's over. Which means the medical imperative is that you have to preserve function. They have to keep functioning. The moment they stop functioning, that's it. The self-repair mechanism is gone. You don't have anything with which you can repair them. It's gone. With medical nanorobots, externally provided medical repair capabilities, you can repair passive structures which means you no longer have to maintain function. You can repair non-functional cells which makes a huge change in the medical imperative. You now are able to repair something as long as the structure has been preserved. If the structure is preserved, you can repair it. So today, function must be preserved with medical nanorobots, structure must be preserved. Big difference. This difference is so big that you should be able to heal cryopreserved tissue. If you've cryopreserved tissue, it's no longer functional. But the structure is there. If you've done a good job in the cryopreservation. And in fact, we've got examples of simple tissues which are cryopreserved on a fairly routine basis and they're just cooled and warmed. And there's one example of a complex tissue, complex mammalian organ, a rabbit kidney that was cooled and warmed and began to function again. No nanotechnology involved. And we have evidence of excellent structural preservation. If, for example, you use vitrification, you can see the image on the right. It's a vitrified kidney. And this is being investigated for purposes of organ banking. If you can organ bank kidneys, then suddenly you can get very good matching of the organs and when someone comes in and their kidney is failing and say, ah, that organ there in the organ bank is a perfect match. You can provide them a good organ. So this is also something that is of interest in the field of cryonics. If you can cryopreserve someone, keep them cryopreserved and you are able in the future to repair cryopreserved tissue, then you can revive them. And in the future, you could also use cryopreservation for field use. So if you're away from medical facilities and you suffer a severe injury, you could be cryopreserved as long as you have access to a good refrigerator. So, what is cryonics? Well cryonics, I think most of you heard of cryonics. How many people have heard of cryonics? Everybody's heard of cryonics, yeah, okay. So it involves this large stainless steel thermos bottle. Literally, it's a stainless steel thermos bottle. And it's over 10 feet tall. It's topped off weekly. Take about three months before the LN2 is exhausted, probably longer than three months. And it can preserve people, essentially unchanged, for millennia. And once you're revived, you wake up in the future. There'll be advanced technology. The reason I know there will be advanced technology is if there isn't advanced technology, you won't wake up. Very simple. There will be nanomedicine, same reason. And you will be enjoying a very long and healthy life. And we've previously discussed the meaning of a long and healthy life. So I won't belabor that point. So that, of course, raises the question. Do you want to join the control group or the experimental group? We have excellent knowledge of what happens to the control group. The experimental group has not yet been conclusively demonstrated to awaken, but I have my suspicions, certainly given the choice. Oh, by the way, I was given the choice. Hmm, yes. So I'm signed up with the experimental group. In fact, I'm on the Alcor board because I think this idea looks like it ought to work. And therefore, I am pursuing that, trying to give it the best chance possible. There are a lot of non-technical issues involved, like making sure the organization remains stable, things like that. Okay, on to environmental remediation. Toxic sludge is made from atoms. And obviously we would like to filter out toxic parts. And here we are filtering out the toxic parts. So that is a nanosorter. And the nanosorter is something that, well, you'd have a surface. And the surface would be covered in these nanosortors, and you'd expose one side to the toxic sludge, and the other side would be a container. And they would bind to the nasty things and filter them in, and then you would store them away. So there we are, binding to nasty things. Well, actually in this case, we're binding to a settlement. This is an image from another video, which I've adapted for this purpose, but you get the idea. You could simply filter out the stuff that you didn't like. Here's another thing we can do with this technology. People have been concerned, how many people are concerned about global warming? Hands. Ah, I have good news for you. This technology will let us solve global warming. Very nice thing. There was a nice statement in the IPCC report that came out. This is from working group one, that's the technical working group, which is looking at the core problems. And they said a large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period, which I think means it's already too late. We've got enough CO2 in the atmosphere that we're gonna see a lot of warming, no matter what we do. Which means we need to, as they quaintly put it, have a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period. Guess what you can do with molecular manufacturing? Whoops, don't have that slide. You can use those binding sites and you can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. And a few slides on, I will show you the binding sites or I will show you a conceptual model of how to do that. Solar power, solar power provides something like 5,000 times the total world power usage. And with nanofactories, we can make efficient, rugged, low-cost solar cells and energy storage. This means we can essentially eliminate the use of coal, oil, and nuclear fuels. And as a consequence, we would eliminate the production of CO2. By the way, the solar cells are already dropping in price so fast. We probably don't need any of this fancy nanotechnology stuff for them. They're gonna be deployed regardless. The only question is, how quickly are they going to be deployed and how rapidly do we phase out the coal and oil? And do we have the necessary batteries? Solar has this problem. The sun goes down at night. So you need some sort of energy storage mechanism so you can have power at night. Well, you can make really good energy storage devices with nano. Space, IS. Lighter, stronger, smarter, and less expensive. Well, basically you can get new inexpensive materials with a strength to weight ratio over 50 times out of steel. Ooh, that sounds good. Which will let you make really good rockets. So let me give you the punchline. Single-stage to orbit vehicles. With a total of 3,000 kilograms mass, that includes fuel, and 60 kilograms of structural mass, able to carry 500 kilograms. That'll be four passengers with air, luggage, seating, all of that. You can run this thing on liquid oxygen or hydrogen. It'll cost a few thousand dollars. Got that? How many of you want one of these in your backyard? Same price. Just put on the booster rockets and come on home. It's not a problem. This is actually published in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. That was in 1992 that this analysis was published. So this is a nice straightforward vanilla analysis. It was also a nice PhD thesis by a guy down south in Southern California. I think of down south as Southern California. And he basically ran through all the various launch vehicles you could use. He concluded the cost of launch to low earth orbit would drop by a factor of three to four orders of magnitude once you plug in the strength to weight ratio and costs of basically the kind of materials you can get from nanofactories. Now, once you're in low earth orbit, you want to putter around the solar system, right? And you don't want to be stuck in low earth orbit. That's dull. You get a good view of the earth, but you want to go out to Saturn, see the rings, Jupiter, look at the moons. So you want a solar electric ion drive. That means you're going to have aluminum reflectors. They're going to be thin. You have arrays of small ion thrusters. And you get something like 250,000 meter per second exhaust velocity. And you'll get an acceleration of about 8 tenths meters per second squared. Earth's gravity by reference is 9.8 meters per second squared. So you're getting order of magnitude a tenth of a G. So it's not a lot, but you can sustain it. And you can tour the solar system in a few months in this gadget. So it's very nice. You can make it big, you can make it small. So you could have a modest size one or a large size one. And oh, by the way, you can also use these molecular manufacturing systems to provide recycling, even in a small vessel. So you can just stay out there for as long as you want. Sealed vessel, solar powered, recycled. Enjoy yourself, completely independent. Oh, you could have a big one. How many people have heard of O'Neill colonies? Yeah, okay. So now you can putter out and go to the asteroid belt, mine the asteroid belt and convert it into O'Neill colonies. These things are built using, O'Neill was a Princeton professor. And his classes in civil engineering were a little bit dull, so he decided to liven them up. And he said, okay, use your civil engineering techniques to design cylinders that are a couple of miles in diameter, one, two miles in diameter, 10 miles long, and fill them with breathable air and put people in them. Now, solve all the engineering problems that this entails. And the classes had great fun, published books, articles, and it turns out it works like a charm. So you can have O'Neill colonies and they're marvelous. You can use 1960s civil engineering practices. And if you throw in nanotechnology and light strong materials, you can make them even bigger and stronger and all of that. Feeding people. Right now we have some concerns about feeding people. Takes about one hectare, 10,000 square meters of farmland to feed an American, more or less, give or take a bit. Now, one person actually needs about 10 megajoules a day. That's how many calories an average person burns. You can get 10 megajoules from less than the sunlight on one square meter of roof-mounted solar panels. Oh, 10,000 square meters of farmland and one square meter of solar panel. That's forward as a magnitude. So you've got forward as a magnitude difference in principle from what we use and the minimum that theoretically is required. There's some room for improvement there. In fact, there was a class at Singularity University that proposed to pick up a factor of 10, more or less.  And they were just using standard known methods. They were gonna optimize the nutrients, optimize the concentration of CO2, the temperature, the humidity, eliminate pests. They were, you know, using conventional techniques. If you did all this using molecular nanotechnology, you could drop the price, do a better job and get a better result. Ah, yes, and here we come to the part where we eliminate CO2 in the atmosphere. This uses diamond trees. Diamond trees have, well, trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Diamond trees do the same thing, only they do it more effectively. They convert CO2 into, well, diamond products by absorbing sunshine. And they have a large spherical photovoltaic shell on top perched on a flexible stalk. And you build them and plant them in the ground at regular intervals. And there's a paper on the subject that describes what's going on. And here we see atmospheric CO2, business as usual. It goes up, up, up, up, up, up, up, up. If you assume that, you know, sometime around 2030 we develop molecular manufacturing and start deploying diamond trees. It goes up, up, up, up, up.  So that's what happens. And suddenly we've solved global warming. So trends suggest that, you know, 15 to 20 years until we get molecular nanotechnology. But really that's, you know, a bit of an error because how long it takes dependent on what we do. The standard winding path of random developments will take longer than if we have a directed effort focused on building molecular manufacturing. And that's it. Now we have discussion. So question. Ah-ha. Yeah, well, the best way to mitigate risks is to, the best way to mitigate risks is to have a, how shall I phrase it? Low profile development project that small numbers of people know about and which is funded by, you know, groups that are very responsible. I actually might want to read the four side guidelines on that. The four side guidelines were developed geez, quite a few years ago. We went off and had to retreat at a Solomar and said, hey, this technology has risks. How do we avoid them? How do we make sure everything happens safely and smoothly and there are no problems. So we put out some guidelines and they've been updated and talked about and discussed in various ways. But there are various ways of doing it. Looks like the simplest would be to, you know, just make sure that it's developed by people who are very responsible and make sure that it's done in a suitably safe way. Right now, it doesn't look like it's happening. So the point is moot for the moment. Other questions. You mentioned that we would have the diamond trees by the year around 2030. What about something similar that would start pulling pollution out of the air? Is there anything that would be available sooner than that? Well, first you gotta develop the nanofactories. So if there were a large focused effort to develop, let's put it this way. In order to go to the moon, we had a large focused effort to go to the moon. To develop nanofactories, it would be helpful if there were a focused effort to develop nanofactories. So far, no focused effort to develop nanofactories. So if there were a focused effort to develop nanofactories, then presumably we would be able to state more accurately how long it would take to develop them because there'd be a schedule and stuff. Right now, it's, yeah, well, you know, it should be developed somewhere along there. I mean, if you look at what's going on in the semiconductor and computer industry, it's a plausible number. And then exactly how long it takes, yeah, you know. When a project starts, we can start getting some more accurate estimates. Yes? Would a focused effort be at odds with mitigating risk? Depends on whether the focused effort were a big public effort, and you've told everyone about it. If you had a focused effort, and you said, hey, there's a focused effort, and by the way, it's a nice focused effort and people are responsible, and no, we're not gonna tell everyone exactly how to do it because it's a focused effort and we wanna mitigate risks. And we're mitigating risks by having a focused effort which is, you know, we're not telling people how to do it, we're just doing it. And we'll make the products available, but the technology will be, you know, kept under wraps. So one very common problem with human cognition is overconfidence. Given the very rosy picture that you paint, what would you, how would you gauge the optimism of this outlook versus the realism of this outlook?  Would you put this in the 30% likelihood range or that type of thing as far as confidence is concerned? Well, there are a couple of answers to that question. First off, is the technology going to be developed at some point? Yes, because the basic physics is pretty obvious. Could the technology be developed on the timescale I'm talking about? Yes, because if you put in effort, then the various problems have been looked at and thought about, and it looks like that kind of technological effort would be sufficient to let you develop it. Will it be developed on that timeframe? That's a harder question to answer. And the reason it's a harder question to answer is, hey, maybe people don't put any money into the effort. They haven't so far. So if that continues, then it would be delayed. So telling schedules, particularly if there is not a well-funded focus project, is difficult. And to give you an example of this, the National Nanotechnology Initiative originally had a dollop of funding in it that said this funding will be spent on assessing the feasibility of molecular manufacturing. And then some guy named Bill Joy. How many people have heard of Bill Joy? Okay. A guy named Bill Joy wrote a very nice article called Why the Future Doesn't Need Us.    And at that point, suddenly the funding to explore the feasibility of this vanished. Poof, gone. Because the people who were putting together the funding said, hey, there might be a backlash. Funding went away. And the funding hasn't reappeared because the political sort of infrastructure that looks for funding is very shy about anything that looks like it might put their funding at risk. So the official word went out and the official word was, this technology is clearly impossible. And it's impossible because it might put our funding at risk. Therefore, it's impossible. So maybe that continues for a while. But technically, hey, it should work like a charm. So the answer is I don't know.  It's a very simple answer. So mine would be a related question but specifically on the medical applications. About 19 years ago, I remember hearing about this super promising treatment for cancer where they found that cancer cells have so many times as many receptors for folate and for B12. And so potentially you could use a Trojan horse strategy where you bind a toxin to the vitamin and then it's not in an amount that would kill the regular cell but the cancer cells taken so much, it destroys them. And so for a couple decades, I've been expecting this to be out and saving people's lives. And every time I go online to check on it every few years, I see that it's in clinical trials. They said 19 years ago that they were gonna fast track it, the FDA. So supposing that we've got the medical nanotechnology, how do we actually get it available to people as opposed to just having it invented? Well, the medical nanotechnology is gonna follow the usual route. Rich people get it first. Okay, just how it always happens. And the rich people will get it and then it'll be checked out and it will work hopefully okay, but they're the guinea pigs. And then as it gets better and cheaper and more reliable, the price is gonna drop in Moore's law and eventually it'll get to the point where it's really cheap and really reliable and available for everyone. And that's gonna take some number of years based on sort of Moore's law technology progression. So don't get cancer for a while. That's sort of the first bit of advice. And if you do get cancer, call Alcor. I mean, that's what's available now and it's technology that is available. It works. We can actually cool people to the temperature of liquid nitrogen. That is guaranteed to work. There's some debate about the part where you warm people up and have them become healthy. Personally, I think that part will also work, but given the choices that would be available at that point, I would suggest that being cryopreserved and preserving the information in your brain as best we can is probably a good idea.  It's been flooded in Scott Water Damage. Do you stick it in the freezer and hope that you can figure out how to repair the damage and read it at some point in the future? Or do you throw it in the fire and say, Psyllian, take your pick. But basically, hey, the technology looks like it's gonna come and it's gonna be very impressive technology. And while I cannot make any kind of strong statement about the time frame, I'm reasonably optimistic, but you know, I really can't make a statement about the time frame that's that strong. Nonetheless, it is gonna be coming and liquid nitrogen is very forgiving. You can stay in liquid nitrogen for a long time with essentially no changes. So, other question, yes? So I think you may have made the comparison of developing nanotechnology to the space race. At the height of the space race, the budget for NASA was not- 20 billion dollars. I don't remember the numbers, but it's not a not insignificant amount of the GDP, the country, right? And it has gone down quite a bit since then, which makes me sad. But I'm wondering, where would you like to, and where do you expect to see funding for this kind of a project to come from? Is that like a public thing funded by the government? Would it be a large expenditure? Was that gonna come from- Any source would be fine. It would be good. Someone has to be able to write a check. Government, private, academic, whatever. I would guess that a billion dollars would cover the whole project. Doesn't have to be written all at once. Yeah, 20 million upfront. Essentially, the first thing you do is you hire a bunch of computational chemists and do a bunch of research work on all of the reactions involved and all of the modeling of all of the key structures involved, and you can do that.  I was saying, hey, give us some money. In fact, Bill Goddard, who runs the computational center at Caltech, put in a proposal to model an assembler back in the 1990s sometime. And he was turned down, of course. But the computational chemists, they're fearless. And they don't care if you can build it. Who cares? They have computers. They have computational chemistry codes that have been checked out and can analyze structures. So you just say, hey, go, analyze, figure it out. Boeing designs and builds airplanes on a computer before they ever build them in the real world, same principle, and it's cheaper. So burn a few tens of millions of dollars on that as the first step. And that also would consolidate the understanding, the computational chemists, would be able to make statements like, yeah, that design there. Maybe it would work. You build that thing, it would work. And they'd be believed because they're, you know, standard mainstream computational chemists using standard computational chemist tools. So that would be the first step. And then after that, you do the rest of the development work in accordance with the proposal that was sort of fleshed out by the work in computational chemistry. It's pretty straightforward. It just requires gobs of money and focus. It's gotta have focus. If you don't have focus, you can wind up spending lots of money and getting nothing. Okay, this will be the last question. What are the practical business opportunities that might drive this? Is there anything going on? Ungodly sums of money. That would be one of the obvious ones. And then of course, there might be some rich person who says, you mean if we don't get this developed, I personally would wind up dropping dead? And the answer is, yeah. Oh, so you know, there might be someone who decides that, hey, they think being alive is worth, you know, maybe throw $20 million into the modeling project and see how it comes out. Here, here's $20 million. You claimed you could design one of these things with a computational chemist, go, do it. Come back in, you know, a couple of years with a design. And if it looks good, maybe I'll fund that. It's the obvious thing to do. Whoops, I think we've run out. There's one last one, unless it's... Now we have time for one more. So there's quite a few billionaires in the US, right? You would think. Yeah. So Elon Musk doesn't, you know, he doesn't want to live forever. Hey, you know, they're all focused on where's the financial return in five years? Nobody wants to be told, yeah, we'll give you a financial return in 20 years. Look, people who have lots of money have lots of money for a reason. They spent the money they had getting more money. They're really good at making money. That was a setup, right? Well, you know, it depends. Find a billionaire and find out what they're really interested in and then, you know, work from there. If they wanna solve global warming, sure, that's great. But you gotta find someone who is a billionaire who wants to solve global warming and doesn't hate technology. You know, it's one of those things. Thanks, everyone. I think we're just gonna take a minute or two. Yep. I'm sorry, where you've... If anyone knows, you know, someone who's rich who wants to throw 20 million into the pot for the computational studies and pass their name along. We're gonna set up for the panel discussion, which will take place right here on this table. Thank you very much, Ralph.


interested in your cooperation and your communication, and a good many people told me that they heard about your statement. I guess it's on TV, isn't it? Yes, that's right. I've been locked up in this office and I haven't seen it, but I won't tell you how grateful I am and how worthy I'm going to try to be of all your hopes. Well, thank you very much. I'm so happy to hear that, and I knew that you had just that great spirit and you know you have our support and backing, because we know what a difficult period it is. It's just an impossible period. We've got a budget coming up. We've got nothing to do with it. It's practically already made, and we've got a civil rights bill that hasn't even passed the House. It's November and Hubert Humphrey told me yesterday that everybody wanted to go home. We've got a tax bill that they haven't touched. We just got to not let up on any of them and keep going, and I guess they'll say that I'm repeated, but I'm going to ask the Congress Wednesday to just stay there and let pass them all. They won't do it, but we'll just keep them right next year until they do, and we just won't give up an inch. Uh-huh. Well, this is mighty fine. I think it's so imperative. I think one of the great tributes that we can pay in memory of President Kennedy is to try to enact some of the great progressive policies that he sought to initiate. Well, I'm going to start them all, and you can count on that, and I'm going to do my best to get other men to do likewise, and I'll have to have y'all's help. I never needed more than I do now. Well, you know you have, but just feel free to call on us for anything. Thank you so much, Martin. All right. Call me when you're done. I sure will. Call me when you're done here next time. I certainly will. Let's get together, and any suggestions you've got, bring them in. Fine. I certainly will do that. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.


Everyone it's your girl Kenzie here from late in sports cards and I'm ripping 2021 panini contenders optic football I'll be 10 bucks half case break number 13 random teams Again, here's a look at the random results You can always find these elite in sports cards comm underneath the results tab the link is also in chat for you All right, here we go. Good luck First look at optic for me today. Well first time opening and I guess say watch them forest earlier There we go, I did see that took yeah, yeah, it's awesome. So we were in shock Derek Carr rookie of Chuba Hubbard Panthers We got cracked ice Brandon cooks for the Texans That is to 22 and pink MVP contenders Matt Stafford Rams 275 That down we've got rookie ticket hollow Dwayne s-grids for the Seahawks Grids there that is to 75 Seahawks correct Eastern time Redemption we've got Seawall rookie ticket auto car number 143 lions Lions on the redemption Random tier teams night. Yeah, so you'll get a two teams about one. This one is a random team So one for spot Zeke Elliott's we've got rookie of Raimondry Stevenson Jamar Chase nice one there for the Bengals that is to 99 on that one And then we've got orange round numbers Kenneth Gainwell and Amir Smith Marseille.  So Vikings on this one first auto up out of here We've got rookie auto of Alex Leatherwood for the Raiders Alex Leatherwood and To 22 we've got cracked ice rookie ticket of Eli Mitchell Niners love the cracked ice autos there Joe W with the Niners on that one. Heck. Yeah Sounds good Andrea. My guess would be anywhere from 130 to 2 So say full then I would say full We've got hollow of Corey Davis Jets rookie for the Jets Elijah Moore We've got Lamar Jackson on the red that is to 175 and And Green Pulsar PS2 and JC Horn out of 30 again. That's gonna go bottom Panthers Going back to the Panthers to 50 rookie ticket of Tommy Trumbull Panthers And to 50 we've got rookie ticket auto Mike Stratchin Colts Sounds good. Thanks again for hopping in Andrew. Appreciate it got TJ. What a Javante Williams rookie Broncos Rookie ticket to to at well for the Rams That's to 175 and X's and O's blue Mack Jones and JC Jackson. That's sick. Love the X's and O's there That is to 99 Patriots on the color match and we've got Hello, Ricky ticket Brevin Jordan Texans And we've got some rookie ticket auto Eric Stokes Packers Eric Stokes got Aaron Jones rookie trace sermon Niners We've got cracked ice rookie to 22 terrace Marshall Jr. Panthers and Pink X's and O's Charles Woodson and Brett far Packers to 75 This X's and O's there So 99 a rookie auto Dazz Newsome Bears on the blue and for the Falcons We've got hollow ready to rate. What are the rookie ticket auto Felipe Franks? Falcons hey, Greg Shake one. We've got rookie of Kellan Mon Vikings Hey, Greg Joe B nice little Joe Burr Burr. There we go MVP blue Kyler Murray Cardinals to 99 Got Giants rookie auto Aziz a jewelry and For the Eagles rookie ticket auto Kenneth gain. Well put it on card auto there Eagles That's a good point there. So yeah, yeah Zeke Elliott rookie of Sam Ellinger Colts Although Michael Carter blew to 99 jets and winning ticket blue Derek Carr for the Raiders that is to 99 as well I like the optic winning ticket. Yeah pop Got redemption to set that there. We've got for the Titans rookie ticket auto does Fitzpatrick Titans And redemption time. Good luck everyone. We've got Jalen Phillips rookie ticket auto car number 150 That's bucks right Jalen Phillips Dolphins Jalen Phillips Dolphins on that one my apology Stephen asked with the Dolphins Who might be Jalen Darden? Yeah, or Joe trying to Same idea watching from Korea Yeah All right box That's some points coming up Mike Evans rookie of Anthony Schwartz Browns We've got season ticket blue to 99 TJ watt Steelers and round numbers blue ETN and nausea Harris Five of 99 that will go bottom got 400 points will run them off to all at the end to 99 a blue rookie ticket Auto des Fitzpatrick another hit there for the Titans Damian Harris, we've got rookie of DeWayne F. Scrooge Seahawks Blue to 99 miles Sanders Eagles and we've got optic illusion on the blue scope Travis Kelsey That is two of 25 chiefs Xavier s that's sick like the blue scope on those Got to 30 on the green pulsar rookie ticket auto leave I on who's a rick a Lions on that one And we've got 14 of 15 Seahawks all-time auto Steve large it That is sick nice one there seabirds On the combo spot max a million Nice large it that is sick. I thought it was gonna be a RPA for a second All right last box here that we've got a random to do on the points, right? We've got Tom Brady season ticket rookie ticket Elijah Moore Jets Orange Aaron Jones for the Packers on the season ticket That is to 50 and optic illusion for the Browns miles Garrett's Based on that one. We've got Texans rookie ticket auto Jalen camp. It's like the third Texans rookie out of there Last auto of the break. We have a rookie ticket auto quitty pay for the Colts Colts on that one. All right, give me one second here to set up the random for these 400 points Not the best start of optic for the night Guess we can only go up from here, right? 400 points Alright Yeah Four four is eight eight times on the random again top team after the random will win the 400 points one Two three four five six seven eight Falcons Falcons taking home the 400 points. I send it up. All right. Let's do a recap here I think there's a couple new ones Victor. I believe two or three new parallels and this year's optic We had quitty pay Colts Jalen camp Texans on Luzerique Lions Desk Fitzpatrick Titans Jalen Phillips Dolphins Desk Fitzpatrick Titans Kenneth gain. Well Eagles Agilari Giants Felipe Franks Falcons Dazz Newsome Bears Eric Stokes Packers Brevin Jordan Texans Mike Stratchin Colts Tommy Trumbull Panthers Elijah Mitchell Crack Dice Niners Alex Leatherwood Raiders Penny Sewell Lions redemption Dwayne Eskridge Seahawks and then the Steve Largent on the all-time 14 of 15 seabirds. All right, that'll do it for the first half. We've got another half of random team coming right up


The Landsat 8 satellite successfully launched with two thermal infrared bands on February 11, 2013, providing another opportunity for remote sensing of land surface temperature, LST. However, calibration notices issued by the USGS indicated that data from the Landsat 8 thermal infrared sensor, TIRS, band 11 had large uncertainty and suggested using TIRS band 10 data as a single spectral band for LST estimation. To address this issue, researchers developed an improved model window IMW algorithm for LST retrieval from the Landsat 8 TIRS band 10 data. Three essential parameters, ground emissivity, atmospheric transmittance and effective mean atmospheric temperature, were needed for the IMW algorithm to retrieve LST. Additionally, a new method was proposed to estimate the parameter of effective mean atmospheric temperature from local meteorological data. Other two essential parameters could be both estimated through the so-called land cover approach. Sensitivity analysis conducted for the IMW algorithm revealed that the possible error in estimating the required atmospheric water vapor content had the most significant impact on the.