From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Wed Jan 10 2001 - 09:18:03 MST
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:04:43 MST