>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
>
>Zero Powers wrote:
> >
> > When talking nano, the best defense is an infallible, impenetrable and
> > non-hackable offense. For your plan to work, your offense would have to
>be
> > practically perfect and everyone else's offense would have to be
>imperfect.
> > If you believe that such an offense can be devised in the era of strong
>AI,
> > don't you concede that you may be just a smidgen over-optimistic?
>
>One thing I've learned with regard to computer technology: Its almost
>impossible to be over-optimistic.
While the recent exponential advance of computing power does leave room for
gobs of optimism about the *overall* advance of computing power, it does not
leave room for optimism that *your* computing power will be stronger than
mine. Therefore, it does not leave room for optimism that your
nano-defenses will be sufficiently perfect or that my nano-offenses will be
sufficiently imperfect for your plan to work. I'm reminded of the
"immovable object vs. irresistable force" hypothetical.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:49 MDT