Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Gagnon Interview, Public Accessibility, and NT Industry Growth

Expand Messages
  • Tim Ventura
    Howdy Group -- There are a variety of ways to look at the material I put online. Obviously Mark has one take on it...the part that I must disagree on is the
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Howdy Group --

      There are a variety of ways to look at the material I put online. Obviously
      Mark has one take on it...the part that I must disagree on is the 'lone'
      nutcase, though, because I work with hundreds of inventors, and each of
      those interacts within a larger alternative-science community with thousands
      of participants.

      Despite the fact that I'm a big advocate of Nanotech, I typically don't
      publish in the newsgroup or even online about the subject because Nanotech
      is missing a key ingredient for success: accessibility.

      In other words, if you are a government scientist in a gigantic lab, you can
      trace the words "IBM" on a gold plate with no trouble -- maybe the next step
      after that is Quantum Dots (which tie back into Gagnon's work to some
      degree), and then fast-foward to an assembler.

      However, as much as I would love to see these things in the near future, I'm
      worried that despite the incredible press and government investment Nanotech
      may languish for years in a 'no man's land' because of a complete lack of
      public accessibility.

      Proponents of Nanotech compare it the 'coming revolution in materials' the
      computer revolution, but its a false comparison because the factor that made
      computers popular was the fact that every Dad in the country felt guilty
      unless he had one for his kid to play with. Heck, our 12-year old
      foster-child has books on Nanotech, as well as a 1.7 Gigahertz PC -- guess
      which one he spends more time with?

      'Public Accessibility'

      I know those are dirty words in a group dedicated to science, but think
      about the public as an enormous force multiplier. After all, not only did
      Microsoft and Apple start as garage-based companies, the vast majority of
      software companies in the 1980's started from kids dreaming up software
      instead of doing their homework.

      After the initial product offering of the PC was developed, it remained
      virtually useless until the public started building its own applications --
      this is something that you won't see with Nanotech unless a method is
      devised to actually allow public participation with the technology.

      The REAL comparison here is with genetics. Notice how genetic engineering
      remains trapped in the lab -- unable to break-free from the confines of big
      government programs and mired in ethical issues. At what point do you think
      that this will change? What exactly are the dynamics that will change this
      paradigm?

      I'd considered going into genetics very seriously when I started college in
      1992. That was 12 years ago, and it was expected to be a several trillion
      dollar business by the end of the decade. I know that it generates income
      right now, but not much unless you're in agribusiness or developing certain
      types of vaccines, etc ..

      The point here is that there are PhD genetic engineers in the Redmond area
      making $40,000 per year, and the average salary for this town is $70k per
      year. I did a salary lookup 2 days ago just to check, and sure enough the
      demand is virtually null, in response to a lack of funding for genetic
      startups. The lack of demand is not only related to potential market size,
      but also to factors like public acceptance.

      People invest in things that they can see, and things that directly impact
      their lives. Genetics has a muddy reputation at best -- the few people that
      realize that 40% of our wheat is genetically engineered tend to be the ones
      who really don't like this trend. Meanwhile, Mom & Pop investor put money
      into IT industries because they use the technology ever day.

      Well, thanks to the illustrious Bill Joy and his "shoot from the hip"
      writing in Wired Mag, we now have people around the world scared of
      Nanotech -- and scared of the big, shadowy institutions that finance this
      type of technology.

      People used to be afraid of computers the same way. They were paranoid about
      Orwell's 1984 'Survelliance Society', and a variety of other worries, but
      this paranoia began to ebb once they began using computers on a day to day
      basis. It's still not completely gone -- but most of the worry is because
      its a 'known danger'.

      If there is a cohesive theme to this email, it is simply: get people
      involved!

      Nanotech doesn't exist in a vacuum, and public perception drives government
      regulation and investment in this technology. Trust me, these factors mean
      more than you would probably guess. Public perception is the reason that the
      government is unable to censure Microsoft for their activities, and its the
      reason that pretty much everybody in Europe HAS censured genetically
      engineered foods.

      The difference is that one of these technologies is in every home in
      America, and the other technology is locked in a laboratory basement behind
      a door guarded by a shadowy man with a very big stick.

      Thanks;

      Tim Ventura



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tim Harper
      For anyone who wants to get involved, or get up to speed we already published the basics, and made then freely available. Go to http://www.cientifica.com
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 30, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        For anyone who wants to get involved, or get up to speed we already
        published the basics, and made then freely available.



        Go to http://www.cientifica.com <http://www.cientifica.com/> and click
        on 'White Papers'.



        Tim







        _____

        From: Tim Ventura [mailto:tventura6@...]
        Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 7:17 PM
        To: nanotech@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [nanotech] Gagnon Interview, Public Accessibility, and NT
        Industry Growth



        Howdy Group --

        There are a variety of ways to look at the material I put online.
        Obviously
        Mark has one take on it...the part that I must disagree on is the 'lone'
        nutcase, though, because I work with hundreds of inventors, and each of
        those interacts within a larger alternative-science community with
        thousands
        of participants.

        Despite the fact that I'm a big advocate of Nanotech, I typically don't
        publish in the newsgroup or even online about the subject because
        Nanotech
        is missing a key ingredient for success: accessibility.

        In other words, if you are a government scientist in a gigantic lab, you
        can
        trace the words "IBM" on a gold plate with no trouble -- maybe the next
        step
        after that is Quantum Dots (which tie back into Gagnon's work to some
        degree), and then fast-foward to an assembler.

        However, as much as I would love to see these things in the near future,
        I'm
        worried that despite the incredible press and government investment
        Nanotech
        may languish for years in a 'no man's land' because of a complete lack
        of
        public accessibility.

        Proponents of Nanotech compare it the 'coming revolution in materials'
        the
        computer revolution, but its a false comparison because the factor that
        made
        computers popular was the fact that every Dad in the country felt guilty
        unless he had one for his kid to play with. Heck, our 12-year old
        foster-child has books on Nanotech, as well as a 1.7 Gigahertz PC --
        guess
        which one he spends more time with?

        'Public Accessibility'

        I know those are dirty words in a group dedicated to science, but think
        about the public as an enormous force multiplier. After all, not only
        did
        Microsoft and Apple start as garage-based companies, the vast majority
        of
        software companies in the 1980's started from kids dreaming up software
        instead of doing their homework.

        After the initial product offering of the PC was developed, it remained
        virtually useless until the public started building its own applications
        --
        this is something that you won't see with Nanotech unless a method is
        devised to actually allow public participation with the technology.

        The REAL comparison here is with genetics. Notice how genetic
        engineering
        remains trapped in the lab -- unable to break-free from the confines of
        big
        government programs and mired in ethical issues. At what point do you
        think
        that this will change? What exactly are the dynamics that will change
        this
        paradigm?

        I'd considered going into genetics very seriously when I started college
        in
        1992. That was 12 years ago, and it was expected to be a several
        trillion
        dollar business by the end of the decade. I know that it generates
        income
        right now, but not much unless you're in agribusiness or developing
        certain
        types of vaccines, etc ..

        The point here is that there are PhD genetic engineers in the Redmond
        area
        making $40,000 per year, and the average salary for this town is $70k
        per
        year. I did a salary lookup 2 days ago just to check, and sure enough
        the
        demand is virtually null, in response to a lack of funding for genetic
        startups. The lack of demand is not only related to potential market
        size,
        but also to factors like public acceptance.

        People invest in things that they can see, and things that directly
        impact
        their lives. Genetics has a muddy reputation at best -- the few people
        that
        realize that 40% of our wheat is genetically engineered tend to be the
        ones
        who really don't like this trend. Meanwhile, Mom & Pop investor put
        money
        into IT industries because they use the technology ever day.

        Well, thanks to the illustrious Bill Joy and his "shoot from the hip"
        writing in Wired Mag, we now have people around the world scared of
        Nanotech -- and scared of the big, shadowy institutions that finance
        this
        type of technology.

        People used to be afraid of computers the same way. They were paranoid
        about
        Orwell's 1984 'Survelliance Society', and a variety of other worries,
        but
        this paranoia began to ebb once they began using computers on a day to
        day
        basis. It's still not completely gone -- but most of the worry is
        because
        its a 'known danger'.

        If there is a cohesive theme to this email, it is simply: get people
        involved!

        Nanotech doesn't exist in a vacuum, and public perception drives
        government
        regulation and investment in this technology. Trust me, these factors
        mean
        more than you would probably guess. Public perception is the reason that
        the
        government is unable to censure Microsoft for their activities, and its
        the
        reason that pretty much everybody in Europe HAS censured genetically
        engineered foods.

        The difference is that one of these technologies is in every home in
        America, and the other technology is locked in a laboratory basement
        behind
        a door guarded by a shadowy man with a very big stick.

        Thanks;

        Tim Ventura



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        The Nanotechnology Industries mailing list.
        "Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."
        www.nanoindustries.com



        _____

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        * To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nanotech/

        * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        nanotech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        <mailto:nanotech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

        * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
        <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mark Gubrud
        ... Right, that was pretty much my point. Pseudoscience has evolved; the lone nutcases of yesterday are sometimes the deluded stars of a thriving little
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 30, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Tim Ventura wrote:
          >
          > Howdy Group --
          >
          > There are a variety of ways to look at the material I put online. Obviously
          > Mark has one take on it...the part that I must disagree on is the 'lone'
          > nutcase, though, because I work with hundreds of inventors, and each of
          > those interacts within a larger alternative-science community with thousands
          > of participants.

          Right, that was pretty much my point. Pseudoscience has evolved; the
          lone nutcases of yesterday are sometimes the deluded stars of a thriving
          little commercial scene today, in which operators like Tim turn a buck
          by using the mad scientist acts of these brave nutcases as bait for a
          larger community of pseudoscience enthusiasts, hobbyists, investors, and
          other customers for fraudulent junk.

          > Despite the fact that I'm a big advocate of Nanotech, I typically don't
          > publish in the newsgroup or even online about the subject because Nanotech
          > is missing a key ingredient for success: accessibility.

          And because when you come here, you can expect a whipping.

          > In other words, if you are a government scientist in a gigantic lab, you can
          > trace the words "IBM" on a gold plate with no trouble -- maybe the next step
          > after that is Quantum Dots (which tie back into Gagnon's work to some
          > degree), and then fast-foward to an assembler.

          "Gagnon's work": established pseudoscience.

          > However, as much as I would love to see these things in the near future, I'm
          > worried that despite the incredible press and government investment Nanotech
          > may languish for years in a 'no man's land' because of a complete lack of
          > public accessibility.

          Right. There ain't a lot of nanotech you can do puttering on Saturdays.

          > Proponents of Nanotech compare it the 'coming revolution in materials' the
          > computer revolution, but its a false comparison because the factor that made
          > computers popular was the fact that every Dad in the country felt guilty
          > unless he had one for his kid to play with. Heck, our 12-year old
          > foster-child has books on Nanotech, as well as a 1.7 Gigahertz PC -- guess
          > which one he spends more time with?

          Well, you know, not a lot of 12-year olds write commercial software, let
          alone do cutting-edge research on artificial intelligence, say. But
          actually, by now quite a few science fair kids have built SPMs, played
          with nanotubes, etc. It isn't cutting-edge research, but it's as least
          as much nanotech as video games are computer science.

          > 'Public Accessibility'
          >
          > I know those are dirty words in a group dedicated to science, but think
          > about the public as an enormous force multiplier. After all, not only did
          > Microsoft and Apple start as garage-based companies, the vast majority of
          > software companies in the 1980's started from kids dreaming up software
          > instead of doing their homework.

          By "kids" I don't think you mean 12-year olds here. In any case, yes,
          the PC revolution was one case where there was a devolution of access to
          the important CAPITAL to create a new industry. The computers
          themselves were cheap, and lots of human brainpower was needed to
          develop the software and applications. Everyone has a brain, although
          not everyone uses theirs productively. So little guys in garage
          startups could make it into the big leagues of this new industry.
          That's a rare event which isn't necessarily going to be repeated.

          Sure, you can buy your pseudoscience kits from Tim and play this little
          game in your garage and pretend you're going to get in on a new
          industry. But actually, you are then just a customer for Tim's industry
          - selling you the crap to play with in your garage. Of course, you
          could start with one of Tim's kits, and move from there into the
          investment fraud market. But in that case, I'd suggest that you not
          spend the money on Tim's gadgets, but save it instead for hiring some
          good, corrupt lawyers.

          > After the initial product offering of the PC was developed, it remained
          > virtually useless until the public started building its own applications --
          > this is something that you won't see with Nanotech unless a method is
          > devised to actually allow public participation with the technology.
          >
          > The REAL comparison here is with genetics. Notice how genetic engineering
          > remains trapped in the lab -- unable to break-free from the confines of big
          > government programs and mired in ethical issues. At what point do you think
          > that this will change? What exactly are the dynamics that will change this
          > paradigm?
          >
          > I'd considered going into genetics very seriously when I started college in
          > 1992. That was 12 years ago, and it was expected to be a several trillion
          > dollar business by the end of the decade. I know that it generates income
          > right now, but not much unless you're in agribusiness or developing certain
          > types of vaccines, etc ..
          >
          > The point here is that there are PhD genetic engineers in the Redmond area
          > making $40,000 per year, and the average salary for this town is $70k per
          > year. I did a salary lookup 2 days ago just to check, and sure enough the
          > demand is virtually null, in response to a lack of funding for genetic
          > startups. The lack of demand is not only related to potential market size,
          > but also to factors like public acceptance.
          >
          > People invest in things that they can see, and things that directly impact
          > their lives. Genetics has a muddy reputation at best -- the few people that
          > realize that 40% of our wheat is genetically engineered tend to be the ones
          > who really don't like this trend. Meanwhile, Mom & Pop investor put money
          > into IT industries because they use the technology ever day.
          >
          > Well, thanks to the illustrious Bill Joy and his "shoot from the hip"
          > writing in Wired Mag, we now have people around the world scared of
          > Nanotech -- and scared of the big, shadowy institutions that finance this
          > type of technology.
          >
          > People used to be afraid of computers the same way. They were paranoid about
          > Orwell's 1984 'Survelliance Society', and a variety of other worries, but
          > this paranoia began to ebb once they began using computers on a day to day
          > basis. It's still not completely gone -- but most of the worry is because
          > its a 'known danger'.
          >
          > If there is a cohesive theme to this email, it is simply: get people
          > involved!
          >
          > Nanotech doesn't exist in a vacuum, and public perception drives government
          > regulation and investment in this technology. Trust me, these factors mean
          > more than you would probably guess. Public perception is the reason that the
          > government is unable to censure Microsoft for their activities, and its the
          > reason that pretty much everybody in Europe HAS censured genetically
          > engineered foods.
          >
          > The difference is that one of these technologies is in every home in
          > America, and the other technology is locked in a laboratory basement behind
          > a door guarded by a shadowy man with a very big stick.
          >
          > Thanks;
          >
          > Tim Ventura
        • tventura6
          Wow, Mark -- that s really vicious. Maybe I will pull my email address from the group because your personal attacks and unwarranted criticisms make it
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 30, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Wow, Mark -- that's really vicious.

            Maybe I will pull my email address from the group because your
            personal attacks and unwarranted criticisms make it impossible to
            conduct a civilized discussion of issues.

            You know, when I worked at AT&T Wireless I managed a 400 person
            department, and I can't ever remember going to a professional
            meeting that allowed your type of conduct.

            In fact, what worse are the emails that I am getting from your
            fellow group members, apologizing (again) for your comments and
            behaviour.

            Just for your information, despite the 2 million visitors I've had,
            I don't make a profit from the AAG website. It's open-source
            technology, which is something that I know you don't support as
            you've spent the last decade leaching off public University
            financing for your degree.

            How's this for a thought: after you finish writing a reply to
            newsgroup and slander me a bit more, maybe you could follow up with
            hate-mail filled with swearing to my personal email account?

            The only reason that I suggest this is because its your modus-
            operandi -- in fact, maybe I could reprint some of those emails
            online that you sent back in 2002?

            You've done something very bad by turning the newsgroup into a
            fearful place, where the only conversation are tentative questions
            about NT jobs because the group members are afraid to discuss
            anything else.

            That's really sad, but since I don't work in Nanotech I have no need
            to tolerate it.

            Best wishes!

            Tim Ventura
          • Mark Gubrud
            ... Wow, Tim, that s really funny, coming from a shark with gleaming teeth. ... We are not the Borg. ... Anybody wants to defend this faker, let them write in
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 30, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              tventura6 wrote:
              >
              > Wow, Mark -- that's really vicious.

              Wow, Tim, that's really funny, coming from a shark with gleaming teeth.

              > Maybe I will pull my email address from the group because your
              > personal attacks and unwarranted criticisms make it impossible to
              > conduct a civilized discussion of issues.
              >
              > You know, when I worked at AT&T Wireless I managed a 400 person
              > department, and I can't ever remember going to a professional
              > meeting that allowed your type of conduct.

              We are not the Borg.

              > In fact, what worse are the emails that I am getting from your
              > fellow group members, apologizing (again) for your comments and
              > behaviour.

              Anybody wants to defend this faker, let them write in here.

              > Just for your information, despite the 2 million visitors I've had,
              > I don't make a profit from the AAG website. It's open-source

              Thirty bucks for a CD plus $5 S&H, advertised it seems on every page of
              your site, is a good little business. I don't know how else you're
              making money, although I note you link to a lot of other sites that are
              also selling things. I don't really care.

              > technology, which is something that I know you don't support as
              > you've spent the last decade leaching off public University
              > financing for your degree.

              I don't know how you think you know anything personal about me.
              At least I'm don't make money selling snake oil on the internet.

              > How's this for a thought: after you finish writing a reply to
              > newsgroup and slander me a bit more, maybe you could follow up with
              > hate-mail filled with swearing to my personal email account?

              Nah, that wouldn't be fun.

              > The only reason that I suggest this is because its your modus-
              > operandi -- in fact, maybe I could reprint some of those emails
              > online that you sent back in 2002?

              Tim, your website is full of fakery. Like, for example, Mr. Hutchison,
              who produced some nice videos I have a copy of, showing "antigravity
              experiments" where objects fall up. They all look just like bad sci-fi
              special effects. In one you can actually see the wires. But my fave
              is the one with the melting ice cream. Hutchison built a little room,
              with a dish of ice cream fixed to a table, fixed the camera to the
              room, and turned the whole thing upside down. It's provable fraud.
              But it's too obviously stupid and penny-ante to be worth pursuing.

              So don't try to threaten me. If I got impatient and used profanity at
              you, I still stand behind everything I said. You are a con man.

              > You've done something very bad by turning the newsgroup into a
              > fearful place, where the only conversation are tentative questions
              > about NT jobs because the group members are afraid to discuss
              > anything else.

              Laughing out loud, goodbye, Tim.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.