Re: Poverty a subject

Posted by Pasti on Jan 30, 2004 at 14:16

Re: Poverty a subject (Kelly)

"Of course not, Pasti. For you to dismiss my previous post because I must be young and therefore lack wisdom was no more condescending than the sky is blue. And shame on me for not having the ability to see the light you have so graciously provided."

Whether you believe it is rather irrelevant.I was wrong about your age, very true.However,you might want to think about why someone completely unknown considers you very young, based on what you sa, or actually write.Wheter you lie it or not.

"Clearly. It just means that what you have to say should be taken with the appropriate grain of salt."

If that pleases you, be my guest.

"Excellent technique! Both inaccurate and dismissive in the same sentence! Well done, Pasti."

Dismissive,maybe.Inaccurate, no.Here is what you said yourself:"... still look forward to perusing the science news every morning to see what the latest discoveries and inventions are that day. I've seen many amazing things and am awed but how much the world has changed since my youth."
This tells me that you keep yourself up to date so to speak from the media, which is not very accurate when it comes to science.Pons and Fleichmann and Wang and Dogariu come to mind regarding cold fusion in a beaker, and transluminal speeds.Both in Nature, both inaccurate.

"But in fact I do not judge change based on news browsing. I simply said I look forward to browsing the science sites (,, BBC science news, and Science-a-go-go, among many others) each morning to see what the latest discoveries are."

Should I take it that you jugde change in science based on...You know the addagio:"Verba volant,scripta manent".You have just told me the sources of your info.Nevermind,let's say I was wrong again and you were right.

"which is why I was mentioning it to Amaranth, who is suicidally depressed and sees nothing to look forward to. In other words I was trying to talk her out of killing herself."

Did it ever occur to you that you might have not understood?And maybe why?This time it is you who rushed the judgement.

"Or did you miss that?"

See above"

"Unfortunately for me? Meaning that you are assuming you know so much more about it than I ever could and that I am therefore so hopelessly outclassed that I should just give up now and concede whatever point it is you're making?"

Let me see, you are a programmer, and I am a physicist.Gee, I am sorry that when it comes to physics, and in particular Nanotech, I outclass you.My sincerest apologies.

"It's a very odd assumption to make about a total stranger but your wisdom is so great that clearly such things don't apply to you."

It is. But so is dismissing what one says just because he is a stranger. Isn't this the point you were making just above?

"Unfortunately I'm a stubborn sort who...*sigh*...just likes to argue so even though I'm clearly the David and you're the Goliath I plan to keep arguing."

And what if it is true when it comes to physics?Does this bother you?

"Not that I don't want the benefit of your experience. Please tell me more about your involvement in nanotechnology research. In what capacity? Have you published any papers? I'm dying to read them! Details, please."

Check the GRC Holdernesss Conference from 2000, and cross-ref it with UMaine, physics.This should limit the possibilities drastically.
What exactly would you like about NT research?My area was friction at nanoscale.

"The last 20 years or so (an amazingly short time for so radical a concept)"

Actually not. The first TEM of the benzene molecule dates from the 60's.De Broglie himself was amazed by it.
On my scale,these 20 years are a very long time, as much as nanotech goes.

"has seen nanotechnology go from not being taken seriously and completely dismissed to being taken very seriously and seen as very important to the economy and national security. That is a Major Change."

So was solid state physics, and at its time atomic physics,nuclear physics,quantum mechanics,etc.On my scale,this is the normal rate of change, but hardly a major change.I would call a major change the maping of the genome,but in my book nanotech is still in the stage of "potentially" a major change.With still some more to go.

"The whole thing is an excellent example of Clarke's Law regarding the three stages of reaction to radical new ideas: ..."

Well, I guess you could say that, but as much as change is concerned, you are still between 2 and 3, closer to 2.A lot has been indeed achieved,but nothing fully and implementable on any reasonabley large scale.And very little fundamentally new!

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]