[extropy-chat] Reputation was Education monopolies

Robert Bradbury 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
> for
> 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...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070128/d008c278/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list