Nano-Pants Offer Brave New Fashion World
	found on Business 2.0 written by allcaps, edited by Humberto (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Wed 25 Sep 2:44pm
		"Business 2.0 reports on one of the few success stories so far in nanotechnology: Nano-pants," writes allcaps. "The fabric, called Nano-Tex, was developed by researcher-cum-entrepreneur David Soane and first sold to Burlington Industries CEO George Henderson as the result of a cold call. Nano-Tex uses 'nanowhiskers' to make fabric so dense that liquid can't pass through it, yet feel normal and comfortable to touch. 'It's one of those things that, until people try it, they have a hard time believing it works,' says Kathy Collins, the head of marketing for Lee Jeans."

	"Probably the most interesting point in the article was how the American textile industry is adopting software company strategies to remain competitive with Latin American or Asian textile suppliers. 'Most important, the [Nano-Tex] venture could help establish an entirely new way of doing business for a U.S. textile firm -- not running expensive mills, but instead licensing its technology to other mill owners, as if it were a software company. Such a strategy, says James K. Weeks, business school dean at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, is 'the only way the U.S. is going to compete in textiles.'' Finally, the article suggests that the apparel industry could be a ripe environment for high-tech business strategies: it generates $168 billion a year in the US, enjoys little government regulation, and hasn't been exhausted by dot-com delirium like many other industries have. Is apparel the one industry that nanotech will actually revolutionize, or just the first?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 27 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  reading the story--   by kipmanley       at Wed 25 Sep 3:27pm score of 2 intriguing     --it's not so much the nanotech that's doing the revolutionizing as the appropriation of the business model: licensing tech to other companies. Which means, I guess, much like the software companies have done (and Big Content is trying to do), we'll see a trend away from selling us all products that we own outright and a trend toward an attempt to license to us the (provisional, renegeable) right to use a product. So in the next five years I bet we'll get shrink-wrap licenses on pants ("The wearer agrees by putting on this garment to abide by...") and crazy-ass patent disputes ("We find no prior art describing this particular method of applying pants one leg at a time, and so grant...") and industry reps testifying before Congress on the dangers of second-hand vintage stores and the need for anti-pants-sharing legislation to prevent social diseases. Sigh. Long story; short pier.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: reading the story--   by YCDK       at Wed 25 Sep 4:10pm score of 4 funny   in reply to comment 1     So in the next five years I bet we'll get shrink-wrap licenses on pants Just as long as I don't have to look when Richard Stallman demonstrates his new Open Pants Initiative. The can knows who to whoop.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: reading the story--   by sketerpot       at Fri 27 Sep 3:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Quite a double-entendre there--too bad Richard Stallman would call it "Free Pants".   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: reading the story--   by adamrice       at Fri 27 Sep 4:08pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 24     Or perhaps "PANTS" (PANTS aren't nano-trousers) if irony were made of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Definition?   by wrestler       at Wed 25 Sep 3:30pm score of 3 intriguing     Chemists routinely alter the structure of mass made molecules by single atoms. So why are nano-pants hyped as nano-tech, but not what chemical and pharmacueutical companies do when they manufacture precise, complex molecules ... including the synthetic polymers that we've been making pants from for decades? When a chicken makes an egg, her metabolism is re-arranging nano-scopic molecular features. Is chicken farming a nano-tech enterprise?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: Definition?   by hammurderer       at Wed 25 Sep 4:03pm score of 1 modappeal   in reply to comment 2     I'll guess and say that when the end product works on physical (and not chemical) principles, it's nanotech. In the pants case, the molecule is a physical structure, and not a chemical reagent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: Definition?   by dug4000       at Thu 26 Sep 10:50am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 2     Is chicken farming a nano-tech enterprise? It would be one, if marketers got their hands on the industry. They'll happily call anything nanotech if it will create more buzz, as the "nano pants" article demonstrates. The term "nanotechnology" used to refer to something specific, but now it's being applied to anything made of molecules. Which is to say, anything. The word is being degraded and will soon have no meaning. We'll have to refer to "real nanotech" when it actually gets developed. Spring Theatreworks   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  definition of nano-technology   by davidpalter       at Thu 26 Sep 12:00pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 16     I entirely agree. The term nano-technology should be restricted to a very specific technology, that of the nano-assembler, a device which is microscopic, self-reproducing, and which can be programmed to work in coordinated groups, to assemble large structures or to do other things that nano-assemblers would be uniquely well-suited to do (such as to give medical treatment on a cellular level). The creation of a new type of fabric with very fine fibers is simply a form of materials science, not nano-technology. --dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: definition of nano-technology   by wrestler       at Thu 26 Sep 2:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     The term nano-technology should be restricted to a very specific technology, that of the nano-assembler, a device which is microscopic, self-reproducing, and which can be programmed to work in coordinated groups, to assemble large structures or to do other things that nano-assemblers would be uniquely well-suited to do (such as to give medical treatment on a cellular level). You mean like an enzyme? Pharmaceutical companies have been making many kinds of those for years. And chickens can make them too.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: definition of nano-technology   by davidpalter       at Fri 27 Sep 7:15am score of 2 scholarly   in reply to comment 18     I realize that the definition I give for a nano-assembler sounds very much like an enzyme (or at least like a biological cell or bacterium; enzymes are not self-reproducing). But enzymes are programmed only by the genetics (or, ultimately, by the evolutionary history) of the organism which synthesizes them (even if we make them by artificial synthesis). A true nano-assembler is PROGRAMMABLE by definition. That is, it is a machine which you can control directly, by telling it what to do, much as we currently program our macro-technology such as the computers upon which we compose our Plastic comments. Whether such a thing will ever be done, I don't know, but when the concept of nano-technology was originally popularized by Eric Drexler, that's the kind of thing he was talking about, not enzymes, or tiny fibers in clothing fabric, etc., and the true, revolutionary potential of nano-technology requires it to have those characteristics. Until we have microscopic, self-reproducing, programmable machines, we do not have true nano-technology, although we may make interesting advances in materials science which some people will call nano-technology. But materials have always had a microscopic structure of some kind. All large objects are composed of smaller objects, inevitably. Everything has a nano-structure. But not everything is nano-technology. Although like many other efforts to preserve the precision and accuracy of language, this effort may also be doomed to failure. In th end, people use words the way they want to, whether I like it or not. What up, bro? --dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: definition of nano-technology   by wrestler       at Fri 27 Sep 11:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     I realize that the definition I give for a nano-assembler sounds very much like an enzyme (or at least like a biological cell or bacterium; enzymes are not self-reproducing). But enzymes are programmed only by the genetics (or, ultimately, by the evolutionary history) of the organism which synthesizes them (even if we make them by artificial synthesis). A true nano-assembler is PROGRAMMABLE by definition Enzymes require external structures in order to reproduce, but that's true of anything that's constrained by conservation of mass. Surely Drexler's nano assemblers would require various raw and not-so-raw materials. Any single enzyme probably isn't programmable, but the programs to create enzymes exist externally to the enzyme, and enzymes can and do modify those programs, as can scientists. I imagine that Drexler's assemblers will work this way. Being so small, it makes sense to keep their instructions and reproductive machinery external to the assemblers. Also, it makes sense to 're-program' them by simply making new ones, rather than re-configuring the existing assemblers. I'm guessing that the vision of nano-assemblers as re-configurable self-contained robots, that contain their constuction programming internally, will be replaced with a vision much closer to the design of enzymes.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  enzymes as nano-tech   by davidpalter       at Sun 29 Sep 6:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     In a very real sense, biology is already a form of nano-technology, and if genetic technology were to become sufficiently sophisticated, it could do all the things that are envisioned for nano-technology - but we would still be more accurate in describing such a technology as genetic engineering, rather than nano-technology. If all we meant by nano-technology was genetic engineering (or other biological techniques) then we would never have needed to introduce the term nano-technology. The term nano-assembler was specifically introduced to describe the hypothetical creation of non-biological, microscopic, self-reproducing, programmable machines. The biological ones already have names; they are cells. No need to call them nano-assemblers. --dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  For more info on nano-pants...   by hammurderer       at Wed 25 Sep 4:07pm score of 2.5 funny     Here's the company's website. Lots of flash showing different types of liquid getting repelled, wicked, and absorbed. After seeing those Dockers commercials and this story, I'm totally buying a pair of these and going out for ribs.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: For more info on nano-pants...   by Triode       at Thu 26 Sep 7:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     "Lots of flash showing different types of liquid getting repelled, wicked, and absorbed. " I dunno which Design, Branding and Multimedia firm they hired to make those, but as examples of Flash presentations on the web, they suck miserably. Flash is designed to start playing fast and stream in behind, so the 1-minute-over-a-T1 "Please Wait / Loading" is silly. Once I've waited, I get 4 static images. If I click on the image I want to enlarge, I get nothing. It turns out I have to click the small round button next to the image. There appears to be more, but since I've just waited over a minute for 4 jpegs, I get bored and bail out. There are thousands of unemployed Flash wizards out there today who need work! Nano-Tex: Fire yer nephew and get some professional Flash talent! Look at that, I even had it underlined: Breach Hull -> All Die   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  I can barely contain my joy (among other things)   by Damacles       at Wed 25 Sep 4:52pm score of 2 funny     I have a shirt made by Under-Armour that has the same moisture wicking properties that nano-tex has, albeit without the nanotechnology pretense. The water-proofing, though, could revolutionize everything from car seats to military gear. It would also be amazing to see this fabric used in hockey or lacrosse pads (sorry, no football for us Canadians). No sweat, no stink! But all seriousness aside, us bed-wetters can finally get rubber underwear that doesn't chafe! -Damacles   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Re: I can barely contain my joy (among other   by Violator       at Thu 26 Sep 3:16pm score of 2 brilliant   in reply to comment 6     Writeup says: Nano-Tex uses 'nanowhiskers' to make fabric so dense that liquid can't pass through it, yet feel normal and comfortable to touch. Damacles says But all seriousness aside, us bed-wetters can finally get rubber underwear that doesn't chafe! I say: I thought the whole idea was that vinyl and rubber were uncomfortable so that Bubby knows he's being a naughty boy by wetting himself at work in his rubber diapers so Mistress will spank him when he gets home...putting nanopants into the equation just takes all the fun out of a fetishistic experience, in my opinion. Consistently modded down for being an asshole since 2003   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Nano-pants?   by bray       at Wed 25 Sep 7:09pm score of 1.5 funny     Are those like miniskirts for men?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: Nano-pants?   by StratKat       at Wed 25 Sep 7:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     That's what I thought when I read the header too, and it was quite disquieting. Because you know it's going to take every bit of 2 minutes for some moron to put on a thong underneath as well. You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Nano-pants?   by Big Earl       at Thu 26 Sep 6:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     From the hl, I thought the article was going to be something clever about short shorts (or "Daisy Dukes", if you prefer ^_^) and was going to say something to that effect, but noooo, instead you had to go and put that image in my head...!! X_X Please refrain from tasting the knobs.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Are those   by toothless joe       at Thu 26 Sep 6:30am score of 1     Are those atoms that have been manipulated exactly and efficiently on a molecular level, as opposed to via bulk methods such as heat, pressure, and mixing, in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me? » born » tagged » tattooed » pacified »   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Has nobody seen...   by SeniorBoing       at Thu 26 Sep 6:44am score of 1.5 astute     When Pants Attack? This is AWFUL! We'll be terrorized by platoons of GOOSE STEPPING PANTS! I apologize in advance for this post. When you have a 2 1/2 year old, your TV diet consists mostly of Nickelodeon, PBS, and the Cartoon Network.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: Has nobody seen...   by adamrice       at Thu 26 Sep 8:09am score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 10     When I saw it, the first thing that wernt through my mind was "Invader blood marches through my veins like radioactive nano-pants! Do not deny my veins!" if irony were made of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Has nobody seen...   by digit       at Fri 27 Sep 9:04am score of 1   in reply to comment 13     +1 Zim reference. Proof positive that Nickelodeon will cancel every show as soon as it becomes a hit. I'm still wondering why they haven't killed Spongebob yet, seeing as how the show is genius.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Has nobody seen...   by nme!       at Fri 27 Sep 4:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Sometimes that's your TeeVee diet when you're single and in your 20's too. -nme! Virgo: (Aug. 23 - Sept. 22) It's all over but the shouting, but don't worry: It's going to be great shouting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Who needs Depends...   by thegooch777       at Thu 26 Sep 9:03am score of 1     ...when no one will be able to tell that I've had an accident anyway? After all, if liquids can't get in... All I want is a burrow owl, just like my old man   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Re: Who needs Depends...   by J Random Loser       at Thu 26 Sep 4:48pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 14     Yeah, but this means its all going to end up in your shoes. Not exactly a big improvement. The tragedy of this world is that everyone has their reasons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Finally,   by Anonymous Idiot       at Thu 26 Sep 10:19am score of 2 funny     something comfortable for my nano-penis.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]