Monday, February 28, 2005

He did say 'fantastical'


Howard,
The beginning of the story was intended to be along the lines of "You've read the fiction, now here's what actually going on" and that's why I put in "fantastical" and "rampaging" (which I thought made it sound silly). I guess I could have made even snarkier. (I considered mentioning Crichton and Prince Charles explicitly, but the sentence was already long and becoming unwieldy and after all, I didn't want to give that much attention to what I didn't think was real.) The only similar reaction to yours was an email from Nathan Tinker from the NanoBusiness Alliance. Most people, I think, read it in the sense that I intended.

Kenneth Chang
Science reporter
The New York Times

Kenneth,
Well, now I did say it was a "Great NYT piece on nanotech ..." You're probably the unjust victim of a gut reaction from a trigger-happy blogger who was eager to use your piece to try to make a larger point (a general criticism of mainstream media nanotech coverage that I think still stands).

Now, here's a great thing about blogs. They can be participatory. I'd be honored if you'd allow me to run your note in defense of your lede on my blog.

Thanks for your note, Kenneth, except I'm not certain that Nathan Tinker would enjoy being mentioned in the same sentence as Howard Lovy.

Howard

NanoBot Backgrounder
NanoBot-22
"Smalley, you ........ ...."
Pogue does the pants

2 comments:

Nathan Tinker said...

Howard,

I'd never be embarrassed to have my name in the same sentence of yours. Just keep my out those kabbalah discussions . . . ;-)

Howard Lovy said...

That's fine, Nathan, but don't tell me you're so focused on nanobusiness that you never think about the meaning of it all. I know you must, since you come from a liberal arts background just like me.

Even Josh Wolfe, who follows the nanomoney like nobody else in this world, indulges in weekly philosophical and numerological meanderings in his newsletter. I quote from his latest:

"... the evolutionary advantage of reasoning about numbers for our
ancestors is obvious. If four bears go into a cave and two come
out, is it safe to go inside?"

Howard