1773Re: [nanotech] FT Article
- May 1, 2001My disappointment was not an act. I really don't like to see someone
smeared and denied credit for a massive amount of work.
Yes, it is good that they are treating nanotech as a real technology.
I'm not so sure it's good that they're denying gray goo. Those who
already fear it will not be comforted by "It was dreamed up by someone
who is insufficiently scientific." Those who think it's impossible
should probably get a little better educated. So I don't think brushing
it off with a cheap ad hominem attack or two will do any good at all.
Steve Wish wrote:
> eugene.leitl@...-muenchen.de wrote:
> > Chris Phoenix wrote:
> > > Granted nanotech is outside their area of expertise, but they
> > still
> > > should have done better than that... whether accidental or
> > deliberate, I
> > > now have very little respect for Financial Times.
> > Given that they're Mainstream Press (not Nature, not even Science)
> > they did nicely by my metrics (which, of course, range from
> > "abysmal"
> > over "catastrophic" to "miserable").
> > Honestly, I don't understand how you can act so disappointed. We've
> > seen
> > it, and we've seen it, and we'll see it.
> I think that was not only very good, given the conservitism of the
> paper, but might be more inportant: i.e. it might be a semi official
> "stamp of legetimacy" for the nanotech idea. By denigrating "grey
> goo", they are in effect saying that nano is a real technology that is
> mature enough to make some very conservitive people some very real
> money. Perhaps there is some real progress somewhere... It's called a
> "trail baloon"...wish
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> The Nanotechnology Industries mailing list.
> "Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Chris Phoenix cphoenix@... http://www.best.com/~cphoenix
Interests: nanotechnology, dyslexia, caving, filk, SF, ...
Is your paradigm shift automatic or stick?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>