From: Eugen Leitl (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 20 2002 - 13:20:58 MDT
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Mike & Donna Deering wrote:
> Broadcast architecture is the very basis of nanotech security measures
> against gray goo. If we can't do that, we are in big trouble (of
Broadcast doesn't imply wireless. (I'm not a big friend of broadcast as a
security measure, simply because all I have to do is to put the box
producing the instruction stream onboard -- gray goo is not an industrial
accident, it's a deliberately designed weapon).
> course, we're probably in big trouble anyway). The technical
> challenges don't seem all that fierce. Our wireless electronic
The technical challenges are not the issue, the limitation is "limited
bandwidth within the cell" and "too small geometry for RF".
> communications technology is quite mature and molecular equivalents to
> all our basic electronic components have already been designed. As
> soon as we have nanotech capability we should be able to port
> broadcast centralized control architecture.
Broadcast = sending the same information to a number of nodes. If you want
to read out the contents of your brain, that's the very opposite of what
you need. If you want to instrument each cubic micron of the brain with a
probe, and use a packet-switched network to read it out, that's meaning
enough cables that the brain is being diluted by your machinery. And
nevermind the power and cooling issues...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT