From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Mon May 24 1999 - 09:05:37 MDT
Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> writes:
> Of course these things won't be safe, even if there was no
> autoreplicator capability built-in. No man-made computers are provably
> secure, and hacked nanofoglets make great arms or bootstrap tools
> for creating true autoreplicators. Positional control is what we are
> lacking, and there is no utility fog without advanced positional control.
But a foglet does not have nanoscale positional control, at least not
JoSh's design. It would be able to do microscale stuff, but not
position atomes into an autoreplicator. Positional control is
necessary for making the stuff, but the customers do not need to have
it built in in the fog.
Still, a ufog weapon has some potential for mayhem, and I have no
doubt at all that it can be misused creatively. Hmm, if it edits what
is seen through it, one could hide a lot of activities under an ufog
cover.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:47 MST