Yeah. Obviously Drexler at least was thinking about
such things very early--as witness his "active
shields" riff. (Do NOT get me started on THAT one...)
Re: date--'tis why I said apparently and mentioned
Re: Terminology criticism--am working on a critique of
considerably more "depth" than the above.
Publication? Funny you should mention that; I'm a
journalist. (published in Omni, Parade, etc. Once
interviewed Crick on neural nets and human vision, but
the mag--Omni--went under before printing it.)
As should be obvious from previous posts, nuclear
physics is not my strongest area.
Q: Just what forum would you recommend for a response
to something with a title like this thing, anyway..? I
gotta tell you, Freitas' nanomedicine is
impressive--but this paper is full of holes. Practical
holes, not scientific.
--- "Michael M. Butler" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> John Marlow wrote:
> > Yah. I find it interesting that the thing
> > (going by c-date) wasn't written until April 2000.
> > takes Joy screaming the sky is falling to get them
> > think about this? Or just to make it public?
> It shouldn't take more than a few minutes of
> reflection to realize that
> a copyright date only refers to publication. I have
> no idea how long
> Robert was cooking this up. Why don't you ask him?
> Some people take
> decades before they publish. It all depends.
> My guess is that Mr. Joy's media attention certainly
> had some effect on
> completion and publication.
> > You want criticisms? I'll give you two:
> > "Biovorous."
> OK, so you don't like Freitas having a penchant for
> neologisms. Hardly a
> fundamental flaw in the work, it seems to me. The
> title was already
> really long.
> The issue of what countermeasures would work after
> notice of the problem
> is definitely worth further exploration. Why don't
> you work up something
> for publication?
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:18 MDT