O'Regan, Emlyn wrote:
> I'm a bit worried about all this talk of Jupiter sized brains (although
> I'm guilty of it myself).
Me too. Obviously a device built out of degenerate matter, in the shape of a shell covering the surface of a white dwarf, would provide much better performance in a far smaller volume of space (although the mass required is larger by a factor of a few thousand). Come on, guys, lets see some imagination! ;-)
> Wouldn't such a thing be a target? If someone was annoying you who was
> dependent on a Jupiter sized brain, then wouldn't you be tempted to lob
> a couple of fusion bombs at it (sorry all you pacifists out there).
Well, that's what Solar System-sized 'body' surrounding that brain is for - a couple of solar masses worth of Dyson sphere, defense satellites and warships will do wonders for your survivability. Besides, you can't do much damage to something that big with a puny little energy source like nuclear fusion - you need a real weapon, like quantum black holes with a carefully-timed evaporation period.
> Also, in my experience, computers have been getting *smaller* as time
> wends its way towards whatever it wends its way towards. While we're all
> doing this "my brain's bigger than yours" stuff, transhumans might be
> more impressed by tiny, weeny little brains. "I've got the new
> google-flops processor(s) running my brain, it's made out of quarks, and
> is the size of the head of a match - oh wait, I've dropped it, hey,
> guys, can you help me find my brain, it's here somewhere, no, don't step
> there, aaarrgghhhh *gurgle*)..
Well, that's the problem with 'small is beautiful". I'll stick with big guns, thick armor, and lots of empty space around me.
Of course, this is all academic anyway. By the time it is remotely possible to actually do anything like this, we'll have much better ideas.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I