Yah. I find it interesting that the thing apparently
(going by c-date) wasn't written until April 2000. It
takes Joy screaming the sky is falling to get them to
think about this? Or just to make it public?
You want criticisms? I'll give you two: "Ecophagy."
"Biovorous."
john marlow
----- "Michael M. Butler" <butler@comp-lib.org> wrote: > Cool. Criticism is what the piece needs. Thanks! > > John Marlow wrote: > > > > I'm reading it now. The science is good, > obviously, > > and I'm not all the way through it, but holes > appear > > in the first few paragraphs. For example--the > comment > > that a stealth buildup would take 20 mo to > accomplish > > and that a more rapid buildup would be detected, > > thereby enabling defenses to be deployed. > > > > Yah, right. > > > > WHAT defenses? The basic problem, of course, is > that > > you really need a nanodefense--and that you can't > > possibly develop one until (as Drexler has pointed > > out) the tech is already here. > > > > Therefore: If the first guy/nation/AI to develop > the > > tech screws up or goes psychotic, detection > becomes > > quite irrelevant because there ARE no defenses. > > > > As to the little buggers not devouring the > planet's > > core because of meltown--well, that hardly matters > to > > us, does it? > > > > But, as I say, I'm still looking it over. Homework > is > > what I'm doing; that's why I'm here. > > > > Thanks to you and those others who've provided > helpful > > links. Last time I plowed through foresight > in-depth, > > the ecophagy piece wasn't there. > > > > john marlow > > > > -- > > > > --- "Michael M. Butler" <butler@comp-lib.org> > wrote: > > > Well, as long as we're wishing, I'd like a pony. > > > Jeeze, Mr. Marlow. Do > > > your freaking homework. Please. Get a copy of > the > > > Freitas paper from > > > Foresight. > > > > > > www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Ecophagy.html. Read > it. > > > It's the first paper > > > on the subject of any detail. As I say, I think > some > > > of what he says is > > > arguable. > > > > > > John Marlow wrote: > > > > Meticulous calculations > > > > showed that to be very, very, very unlikely, > if > > > not > > > > impossible. > > > > > > > > I'd love to see similar calculations regarding > the > > > goo > > > > situation. > > > > > > > > I really would. > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > john marlow > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > --- "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > Your position rests, though, on one key > > > principle: > > > > > that absolutely > > > > > nobody can be trusted. I think the fact that > > > most > > > > > intelligence analysts > > > > > will admit that at least one if not more > nuclear > > > > > weapons may be already > > > > > in the hands of one or more terrorist > groups, > > > yet > > > > > they have not been > > > > > used is a pretty good indicator that even > the > > > most > > > > > extreme individuals > > > > > can still have the capacity to retain some > > > sanity in > > > > > their judgement. > > > > > The mere fact that the russians, chinese, > > > cubans, > > > > > and others have had > > > > > them and not used them is a pretty good > > > indicator > > > > > that most people are > > > > > pretty good at being responsible with such > > > power. > > > > > Accidents do happen, > > > > > no doubt, however you have not shown any > > > indications > > > > > that advanced > > > > > nanotech would be as uncontrollable as you > > > claim. > > > > > You have no evidence > > > > > (nor, IMHO, any knowledged to judge) that > any > > > > > accidents would not be > > > > > containable. > > > > > > > > > > john marlow wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > All true, all true--but irrelevant; point > is > > > it > > > > > can happen. Two further > > > > > > points: nukes can be tracked, perhaps even > by > > > > > satellite, by rad emissions, > > > > > > making use difficult. Not so nannite > packages. > > > > > Also, any party employing a > > > > > > backpack nuke must fear massive > retaliation > > > from > > > > > the target nation. With > > > > > > the proper nanoweapon, however, the target > > > nation > > > > > can be obliterated, > > > > > > making retaliation improbable and use more > > > likely. > > > > > > > > > > > > john marlow > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael S. Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RUSSIA MISSING NUCLEAR DEVICES > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/lebedlg.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > How long have they been missing? For > years, so > > > far > > > > > as I know. Not one > > > > > > has been used. How about that? > > > > > > Here's another question? How do we know > they > > > > > actually had them to begin > > > > > > with? Perhaps its just a matter of a > commie > > > > > official reporting x number > > > > > > were made and not actually making that > many, > > > then > > > > > pocketing the > > > > > > difference. Not unheard of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos > online! > > > > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! > > http://photos.yahoo.com/
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:18 MDT