From: John Marlow (johnmarrek@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Jan 07 2001 - 15:51:56 MST
I prefer nannites; call me eccentric.
The vacuum suggestion was not my idea; I'm not fond of
it. Designing nanoweapons to attack only humans by
ingestion inhalation would be useless; clean air
supply and food/water would eliminate the threat. Even
skin contact disassembly is not sufficient; the enemy
would conceal its solodiers and field automated
weapons systems. Thus, nanoweapons must be capable of
disassembling ANYTHING. And, unfortunately, they will
be.
john marlow
Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de wrote:
John Marlow wrote:
>
> Well to begin with, you specify nannites which work
> only in vacuum. Living "products" we might wish to
1) it's nanites, not nannites, if you want to use the
vernacular
2) vacuum starts about 100 km over your head, and it
doesn't stop
for a great long while. Infecting the solar system
with
an artificial lifeform which thrives in vacuum
doesn't look
like a very smart thing to do. "vacuum flowers"
this is not.
> construct cannot survive in a vacuum. Likewise, it
> would be difficult to constrct, say, skyscrapers in
a
> vacuum.
>
> And if the past is any indication, the bulk of the
> funding will be for weapons research--and their goal
> is, as you acknowledge, "wild" disassemblers.
Actually, making dust-grain sized machines which
selectively
kill people (ingestion/inhalation, looking for
primate-specific
immune features, then engaging the kill program) would
be much
safer and easier.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:04:38 MST