[extropy-chat] Reputation was Education monopolies
robert.bradbury at gmail.com
Sun Jan 28 21:08:52 UTC 2007
On 1/27/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> I am amused.
Happy to provide entertainment, please leave a few $ in the cup by the door
as you leave.
I don't know about Merkle and Freitas, but _one_ of the reasons Drexler's
> writing has few flaws is that he had a bunch of editors and fact
> checkers. (My wife was among them for _Nanosystems_)
Interesting. I would be curious to know whether the flaws were numerical,
logical, or referential.
And I agree with your assertion. Being wise enough to have internal review
and incorporate worthwhile comments is a productive strategy. I cannot help
however being struck by the fact of how accurate Nanosystems was/is given
that it was written 15+ years ago. So hats off to the reviewers (however
Of course being humble enough to know you are not perfect and *need* others
> to look at your work before publication is in itself a darn good reason
> high reputation.
Agreed. When one is knee deep in a problem (as I currently am with
mechanisms of aging) it is useful to have external inputs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat