>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>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
> > practically perfect and everyone else's offense would have to be
> > If you believe that such an offense can be devised in the era of strong
> > 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.
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
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