Re: Poverty a subject

Posted by
Kelly on Jan 30, 2004 at 15:36

Re: Poverty a subject (Pasti)

"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."

Or...and I'm just throwing this out there...maybe you should consider how quickly you decided that you had a total stranger all figured out AND that it was okay to talk to that total stranger as if they were an idiot.

"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."

Wrong again, but excellent try. What my statement tells you is that ONE of the ways I keep myself up to date is from media sources like various science web sites. What else do I do? You don't know. But you assumed you did.

And the reference to Pons and Fleishmann and Cold Fusion is very good, Pasti. You give that anecdotal example in the same breath as you make your assumption that I get all my info from the media, thereby *implying* (with zero evidence) that I fell for Cold Fusion. Excellent technique! You seek to discredit me by unsubstantiated association.

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

Right back at ya. Ask her yourself. She makes it clear she is considering suicide.

"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."

Assumptions, assumptions, Pasti. You make more than anyone I've ever met.

Okay, Let's pretend that credentials are as important as you seem to think. Let's also ignore the fact that basically what you are doing is committing the Fallacy of Argument from Authority. I will concede that I'm not a physicist. I do have a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Physics and I was an aerospace engineer specializing in space missions analysis and orbital mechanics, but again I concede that I've never done any work in the nanotech field itself.

But that is all irrelevant. I'm a science geek which trumps everything. Save your apologies for the physics community.

"Check the GRC Holdernesss Conference from 2000..."

Checking. If you have a background in tribology and chemistry then your missing my point is even more amazing. Think about what you said, Pasti. You were doing nanotechnology research regarding friction at the nanoscale. The fact that such research was being performed just ten or twenty years after Drexler's book received the initial reaction it did is freakin' amazing! The change in attitude toward the whole topic fits the definition of a paradigm shift.

"Actually not. The first TEM of the benzene molecule dates from the 60's."

Yes, yes, and the actual concept of molecular manufacturing goes back to a paper written by Richard Feynman in 1959. The point is that when Drexler first said that the technology to actually do these things is achievable in the near term, no one took him seriously. Now they do, just a few decades later. That's a major change.

"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!"

I disagree. The same people who 20 years ago were in stage 1 (completely impossible) are now enthusiastically pouring millions of dollars into research, a clear sign that they are in stage 3 (a good idea).

And btw, Drexler's point was that no fundamentally new discoveries were required for nanotechnology to start now.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]