Re: Poverty a subject

Posted by Pasti on Jan 31, 2004 at 14:40

Re: Poverty a subject (Kelly)

"Yes! I measure your increasing blood pressure by the number of insults. Definitely on the rise."

Oh boy...

"What I objected to was your assumption that because I mentioned reading news on these sites they must be my *only* source of information."

Don't make me call you Dumbo again.Read again the original post, and the subsequent to enlight yourself in that matter.You simply don't (want to)understand, no matter what.
Between the BBC, Agogo, and Phys Rev or any real scientific journal, there is a plethora of other media, some better and some not so good that can be used for the purpose of keeping you up to date.You only menioned the lowest link in the chain.And my reply was "I hope you are joking..." (and you can look for the post yourself).
And incidentally,if you indeed were a quick draw, as you claim to be, you would have noted that the Pons and Fleishmann and Wang refs were Nature (or SciAm for P&F, I don't recall exactly), which I assumed you read at some point, based on the fact that you were interested in the development of science and technology. And because the two refs are the best known/bigest boo-boos in the media (that I know of in some detail) when it comes to science.

And I also told you that the media you mentioned is very likely where you most often get your info from,not exclusively.Hadn't you been blinded by your complex, you would have noticed that.

Sure,as I said in a previous post,you might every now and then read some Phys Rev, or Nuclear Phys paper, or you name the journal you please,but you don't do that on a regular basis.And you also read books on the topics, sure, like Drexler, but somehow I doubt that you have KL Johnson's book on contact mechanics, or say, Condon and Shortley on spectroscopy.

The whole point this thing that brought your opprobium regarding your sources was to make you aware that info in these lower/middle link media is not always very reliable, so you should exert caution making judgements based on them, and then advertising them.

But again, you were blinded by the fact that someone, a stranger for that matter, dared to question your knowledge and your sources.Otherwise, you might have noticed that it is a current practice in science.

"I did reserve later judgement."

Very poor attention span.I was talking about you, not cold fusion.

"The difference is that I made no assumption about your reaction to Cold Fusion (since you are a stranger and only a fool would assume facts not in evidence), but you did assume that I was claiming to have "spotted the hoax" even though I said nothing of the kind. You just assumed. Again."

Are you impaired in some way that I should know about?Or just thick?I gave you the cold fusion and transluminal speeds as examples of bad info in the media, and you started to reant about how you fdidn't fell for it. Again,you made a show of yourself, and I called the shots you handed.

"Yes, Pasti. You were able to spot me as not being a nanotechnologist for two reasons:
1. Your amazing powers of deduction
2. Because I told you I wasn't a nanotechnologist."

I would restrict myself deduction.I explained you that point,but you didn't get it.Never mind, it's not the only one and not the most important either.

"I understand that those bad decisions have left you bitter about the whole field."

It would have left you too, had you actually been more involved in it.And it left Drexler too;the only thing he could do about it, so to say, was to write a book to rationalize it.And maybe you should consider the fact that it is not a singular example. Think about the imbecility of the Orion project, and the money spent on it, if you actually want another example.And I can give you more, if you like.

"That doesn't change the fact that the change in attitude of investors and government toward what was just a couple of decades ago thought to be pure science fiction IS amazing."

No,it doesn't,that's right. But neither should one be amazed by the fact that finally the morons you mention raised above the level of a trained monkey.If you want to put it business like, they wasted 30 years of profits, which is, to say the least, bad financial insight.

If you browse history, and account for the info exchange rate at various instances during this history,you will notice that the 20 years necessary for acceptance of new ideas that you mentioned above are the common trend.So, in fact,the attitude and change that you consider amazing is nothing but the incapacity of certain members of the society to learn, let alone understand, anything from the history.

"Yes, that I understand. I guess this part just comes down to a difference in philosophy. The past is what it is. I prefer to look forward."

Actually it doesn't.But nowadays, this has become a rather common excuse.And I think Maslow put it realy nice:"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts resembling a nail".

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]