Recent Nanotech Advancement: Regrowable Teeth!

I wonder if this can be used on the fingers to give me that octave-and-a-half reach on the piano I have always dreamed of.:dopey_love:

Does anyone else think that the application of the buzz-word "nanotechnology" is invalid in this case? The only thing "nano" about it is probably some of the circuitry, which is most likely nothing truly new to the electronic world.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

How is it invalid? Even if the circuitry is "nano," then it's nanotechnology. The object, as stated in the article, is smaller than a pea. And this is a pretty sophisticated piece of hardware.

How small must something be for it to be considered "nano?" If you are referring to circuitry, then shouldn't we be calling modern computers nanotechnology? If not that, then is it dependent upon the scale of the devices itself?

Originally, the phrase "nanotechnology" was conservatively applied to devices and machinery which operated and were manufactured solely on an extremely small scale, particularly nanometers.

Although the device is damn small, it is not "nano" scale. It irritates me to no end when people toss around that magical buzzword "nano" frivolously. At one time, marketing people were even calling some stain-repellant pants "nanotechnology." Honestly, what the fuck is that?

Quote:

Plus, it's hand-in-hand with medical works. Which is very good.

That doesn't make it any more "nano" than a micropipette.

No offense to you though. It is a personal crusade against marketing misnomers which I have been waging.

EDIT:
One more thing.

Quote:

That's pretty sophisticated, y'know.

That right there displays the popular but invalid understanding of what "nano" means. It reveals your core interpretation(and many others) of the prefix "nano" to mean sophisticated. However, sophistication does not justify the given label.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Umm...modern computers quite certainly do involve plenty of nanotechnology. =\

Well, my point is that people aren't going around calling computers(or the individual chips) products of nanotechnology, unless they incorporate devices or techniques particularly unique to the scale, such as MEMS.(at least in my experience)

I still think the label is a bit misleading in respect to the nature and operation of the device in question. According to the article, they could regrow teeth using the other, larger devices, just as well as this new, smaller device. The only difference is the convenience, not the method itself.

But I won't belabour the point any more. The label is still rather ambiguous, and so there is bound to be disagreements here and there, so I suppose, in a way, Gechmir's use is acceptable, albeit still a bit misleading.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.