John Stracke wrote:
>
> >The way I see it: if you're an engineer, then you're-- by definition--
> >interested in *useful* applications of science and technology. If it's
> >useful, then it has commercial value.
>
> In general, I'm not sure that follows. As an extreme example: a
> sufficiently advanced piece of nanotech could construct anything,
> including a replica of itself. It would mean an end to poverty, which
> would certainly be useful; but it would have zero commercial value,
> because the first one you sold would destroy your market.
But think how much you could charge for that first one!!
Or more practically, you'd probably want to sell a service based upon
you're one implementation of that single instance. Just keep skimming
from everyone's pocket to keep the fatted calf alive until the patent
protection ran out (Oh, and given the obscene amounts of money you'd be
making, you'd also be lobbying the gummit to extend patent protections
throughout your lifetime, but I digress). In other words, nanotechnology
has commercial value, and the business challenge is how to best monetize
it.
Maybe that's why you're an engineer, and not a marketing guy... ;-)
- peterd
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch peterd@gydig.com
Gydig Software
I cannot over emphasize the importance of good grammar.
What a crock. I could easily overemphasize the importance
of good grammar. For example, I could say "Bad grammar is
the leading cause of slow, painful death in North America,"
or "Without good grammar, the United State would have lost
World War II".
- Dave Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------------