Comments on: New Nanotech Index, plus gentle teasing http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1961 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Andrew Braswell http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1961#comment-5273 Andrew Braswell Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:58:15 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1961#comment-5273 When I originally saw the report, I had to re-read that sentence a few times just to make sure I wasn't missing something. What's that you say? Better sunscreen, khakis and golf balls "clearly demonstrate" commensurate benefits in medicine, clean manufacturing and chip technology? Sure. The non-capitalization of the "hummer" model name leaves one to wonder if the editors actually intended some double entendre. I listened to/viewed the webcast when this report was released, and much of the data presented seemed to mirror those published by Lux. I also found the 16 companies chosen for their Nanotech Index rather dubious--both for some notable omissions and curious inclusions. Separately, I wonder if anyone noticed this article in Road & Track (to which I have long subscribed). http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=20&article_id=2171 While I think the author does a reasonable job for a non-specialist, the way the introduction paragraph is written borders on irresponsible, IMO. Might a few of the more impressionable readers have thrown the magazine into the air in horror befor ever making to the "just kidding" reassurance? When I originally saw the report, I had to re-read that sentence a few times just to make sure I wasn’t missing something. What’s that you say? Better sunscreen, khakis and golf balls “clearly demonstrate” commensurate benefits in medicine, clean manufacturing and chip technology? Sure. The non-capitalization of the “hummer” model name leaves one to wonder if the editors actually intended some double entendre. I listened to/viewed the webcast when this report was released, and much of the data presented seemed to mirror those published by Lux. I also found the 16 companies chosen for their Nanotech Index rather dubious–both for some notable omissions and curious inclusions.

Separately, I wonder if anyone noticed this article in Road & Track (to which I have long subscribed). http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=20&article_id=2171
While I think the author does a reasonable job for a non-specialist, the way the introduction paragraph is written borders on irresponsible, IMO. Might a few of the more impressionable readers have thrown the magazine into the air in horror befor ever making to the “just kidding” reassurance?

]]>